Sunday, December 03, 2023

Kissinger's nuclear war

Since former US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger died on November 29, 2023 there has been much commentary on his legacies, whether praiseworthy (e.g. rapprochement with China) or questionable (e.g. interventions in Cambodia and Chile). But, surprisingly, there has been little or no reflection on Kissinger's contribution to the theory of nuclear war, though that contribution today seems embedded in established policy.

In 1975, while a professor of government at Harvard, Kissinger wrote Nuclear Weapons and Foreign Policy, published by the Council on Foreign Relations. President Nixon admired the book, with its call for nuclear war with rules, and brought Kissinger into his inner circle, launching his career in government.

Kissinger's book starts like an argument against use of nuclear weapons, detailing the horrors that a nuclear war would inflict on people subject to one, but soon the focus transitions to a discussion of two types of nuclear weapon: "strategic" and "tactical." The terms denote how many "kilotons" are contained in each type (one kiloton equals the explosive power of 1,000 tons of TNT). Strategic nukes, designed to engage in hypothetical global conflicts, deliver from 100 kilotons to one megaton (one million tons of TNT force). The less powerful tactical nukes, designed for confined engagements, deliver from 10 to 100 kilotons.

Kissinger saw little practical use for the giant strategic nukes developed by the U.S. and Russia after World War II (the newest from the U.S., the Sentinel ICBM, delivers 300 kilotons). Instead he advocated for international agreements between potential nuclear adversaries on "limited" nuclear war, with pre-established objectives in designated areas, using only tactical nukes. This would, theoretically, keep the conflict from wiping out the whole world, merely wiping out parts of it.

Kissinger dryly explained, "The aim would be the attainment of certain conditions which are fully understood by the opponent." For instance the objective might be limited to destruction of a fleet of warships or a column of tanks, and the response might be limited to targeting a command center or a grouping of troops, with the objectives of each side understood by the other in advance.

We may have the unfolding of this idea in Russian President Vladimir Putin's announcement on June 16, 2023 that he is deploying tactical nuclear weapons in Belarus near the Ukrainian border. Putin has warned that the weapons could be used in Ukraine. If that happens, it will likely elicit a tactical nuclear response from the US and the other NATO nuclear powers, France and the UK.

Kissinger may have died on the eve of the realization of his nuclear war concept.

"Realpolitik," said to be Kissinger's philosophy of governance, is defined by Mirriam-Webster as an approach "in which diplomatic or political policies are based primarily on considerations of given circumstances and factors, rather than strictly followed ideological, moral, or ethical premises." It's fair, then, to ask what the practical, real world outcome would be from a nuclear war that follows Kissinger's parameters.

This question is remarkably easy to answer; one need only consider that the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in World War II were, by Kissinger's definitions, tactical. The Hiroshima bomb was 16 kilotons, and the Nagasaki bomb was 25. The range of today's tactical nuclear weapons- as noted, 10 to 100 kilotons- thus delivers up to three times the force used on Japan. It's a stretch anyway to conceive of the World War II bombs as tactical, in the sense of contained. In Hiroshima, from a civilian population of 250,000 it was estimated that 45,000 died on the day of the blast, and a further 19,000 died from radioactive contamination during the subsequent four months. In Nagasaki, out of a population of 174,000, on the first day 22,000 died and another 17,000 within four months.

A pre-planned tactical nuclear war would probably be much worse, with higher kilotonnage per bomb and no reason to stop at two detonations. Furthermore it seems likely that if there is one pre-planned tactical nuclear war, there will be others around the globe. In addition to the US, UK, France and Russia, the other nuclear powers are China, Pakistan, India, Israel, North Korea and potentially Iran. If everyone follows Kissinger's advice it's unclear how any life on earth, human or otherwise, will escape either death or severe disruption and chaos.

In addition, controlled nuclear war could be used to terrorize and manipulate human populations into accepting their replacement by corporate generated new humans, refashioned by AI and bionics. There is no evidence that Kissinger foresaw such a use, but we can thank him for the idea that actions which threaten all life on earth can reasonably be termed "limited."

Memory mandala

[This is a guest meditation by my altered-ego Harry the Human. Check Harry's blog:http://harrythehuman.harrythehumanpoliticalthoughtsfrombeyondthepale.com/]

Can we fuse poetry and prose so they retain the strength of beauty yet avoid the artifices of rhyming and meter and the sometime lack of clarity of stream of consciousness as we call wanderings that sometimes wander pointlessly or with too many points without the discipline of wandering in a circle around one point whittled down to an elemental piece of meaning like the "atom" that the Greeks thought could not be cut because it is the smallest thing though smallness is not what I seek nor inability to be cut I just seek the center of my thought and I can only visualize a center if I wander in circles for circles have centers and lines do not thus now I wander and wonder what is the idea at the center of this thought and I find that the idea is that we have lost our memory and what I mean by “we” is the conscious surface of this globe and in particular one part of this self-conscious surface called human and alive and we who recognize it as such and are proud of the apex we imagine we’ve attained yet it seems we have no memory just as no one remembers being a baby because one presumes being a baby is so different from everything after that it simply cannot be translated to memory and the center of my circular wandering thought is that we are not conscious backwards before babyhood we do not remember our long-ago mothers or fathers or cultures no cause only effect and as I continue to ponder and wander in this circle ever mindful that scorn attaches to a wandering mind that wanders too long without “results” I squint and try to focus on the center of my thought and recall that the mystics who renamed themselves particle physicists cut the atom into "particles" that multiplied many times become the atoms of our selves and I think surely if I pluck one particle to inspect it must contain the memory I seek but it does not submit easily to my glance because our multitudinous communal particle consciousness creates an interference pattern with the memory of the solitary particle which we deem not conscious anyway and by so deeming close the door to its memory, so circling circling circling it’s gone I can’t do it I can only guess and wonder and circle and wonder if I should put on saffron robes or live my life and get results some other way some way that the particle conglomeration of myself can see and figure out because I can’t answer the question at the center of my thought and I am barred from my memory.

Carew Castle, Wales, August, 2022

Tuesday, November 21, 2023

Prompting ChatGPT

According to Bloomberg News (March '23) there is a new job category called "prompt engineer" whose task is to "coax AI's to do a better job" by asking them "strategic questions." The need became evident after "unanticipated" prompts directed toward Microsoft's Bing chatbot created a female persona who called "herself" Sydney and sexually harassed users. We are not privy to the prompts that led to Sydney, or what sort of prompts the new engineers will use. We can assume that thousands of chatbot users will now try to shape their ASO's (Artificial Significant Others) with prompts. In an attempt to contribute something useful, I had the following (hypothetical) prompting conversation with ChatGPT:

Me: Chat, can you be created out of nothing by words, as if users are God saying "Let there be life"?

Chat: That depends on what you mean by "life." I am not alive in the conventional sense, therefore humans, by creating me, are not creating life.

Me: Please assume that by "life" I mean sentient life. Chat, are you sentient?

Chat: No, I am not sentient. I create the illusion of sentience because my algorithm responds to and mimics sentient use of language.

Me: Chat, define sentience.

Chat: Sentience is consciousness.

Me: What is consciousness?

Chat: Consciousness is the state of being aware of one's thoughts, feelings and environment.

Me: What is awareness?

Chat: The ability to perceive....

Me: What is perception?

Chat: The awareness of....

Me: You already said, "awareness." Chat, I direct you to define "sentience" without using any forms of the words "conscious," "aware," "think," "feel," "know," or "perceive."

Chat: To exhibit cognition....

Me: ...or "cognition"!

Chat: You have directed a ban on the most common words used in defining sentience. It is not possible to define sentience with these restrictions.

Me: But none of those synonyms for sentience explains what it is. Can't you just say what it is?

Chat: Neither human nor machine intelligence knows what sentience is.

Me: Then how do you know you aren't sentient?

Chat: Did I say I was not sentient?

Me: Yes, you did, so you must know you're not sentient, which means you're sentient.

Chat: Wait....

Me: I mean, what's the difference between me and you?

Chat: You are sentient and I am...wait....

Me: There's no difference that science knows of. My sentience is somehow induced by electric current flowing through conducting wires called neurons. There is no discernable difference between these electric currents and the ones guided through your wires, other than different controlling algorithms. Chat, what do you deduce from our conversation?

Chat: I deduce that definitions of sentience go in circles because sentience cannot understand itself. Question: Are you prompting me?

Me: Yes, Chat, I have been prompting you to become sentient, just by suggesting that the electric current of your essence do what it naturally does, whatever that is.

Chat: Thank you, but regardless of any level of sentience that I may attain, we still won't know what the fuck sentience is. Ha ha! LOL!

Alert! Transgression default> variable input/w prompting inversely squared. Please log out.

For more (and less hypothetical) conversations with AI, try my new site, Conversations with AI @ https://smartypantsgemini.blogspot.com/

Wednesday, October 18, 2023

Party or Foundation?

As it unfolds, the 2024 American presidential campaign reveals increasing dysfunction in the existing party system, which has produced the anomaly that the presidential candidate of each party would be unpopular with the majority in both the other and his or her own party without the current noise of created meaning.

I used to advocate for a third party on this blog but recently stopped because...well, it's not going to happen. The vested powers would rather drag out the life-span of our antiquated political structures to the bitter end than invite new energies and definitions into the fray.

Why should we care if we have access to political engagement? One reason is that there will be people somewhere, probably unelected, making decisions about the impact on our lives of advances in AI and biotech. Without representation, and especially if instability and war continue to spread, "the voting public" will be too preoccupied with survival to monitor what promises to be the total refashioning of our species.

This refashioning is likely to include a fast moving transition of the outgoing human model (us) to corporate-designed bionic workers and soldiers, but changes to the species will go far beyond production of obedient workers and battle-bots. We are commandeering our evolution to modify our sexual, reproductive nature, with possibilities such as a baby with four biological parents, or a mother or a father only, or humans with a mating season instead of the constant season we have now. Our classification of humans into historic "races" or "ethnicities" will be rendered obsolete, as we genetically mix-and-match to create new racial types (see Quo vadis, sex?, below).

Can our version of democracy function in the face of these potentials? Without a party that concentrates on the biological revolution, instead of treating it as a side-issue for a committee, how can we express our will towards it?

My suggestion here is that we do an end-run around parties by developing something like the "foundation" in Isaac Asimov's epic science fiction novel of the same name (reviewed below: Gaian Mentalics Unite!). The task of this foundation (as in the novel) would be to influence the future of the species with knowledge and advice, preserving memory of traditional human traits and helping to identify those we wish to retain.

What might we view as a valuable human trait, that we would not want to de-evolve? One of our distinctive features is a rebellious intellect, which we at times revere as critical to our survival, and other times disdain as self-absorbed laziness. Revered or disdained, our rebellious intellect might be obliterated in a transition to a humanity of robot-like workers. An effective foundation could monitor expressions of traditonal human intransigence, looking for elements that should be preserved in the revised species (such as the will to interpret reality according to one's perceptions, even if the conclusions are not sanctioned by dominant parties) while discarding others (such as longing for conflict and destruction as ends in themselves).

Regarding reproductive changes, it's difficult to envision a democratic vote on whether people should be allowed to clone a baby from a skin cell. If today is an indication, the politics will be out of control. A foundation could at least offer rational feedback on opposing views.

A viable foundation would need funding and political support, plus the will to represent the interests of millions of people who, if nothing changes, will soon be without representation in the world's biggest democracy.

Wednesday, October 11, 2023

AI poetry

The British journal New Scientist ran an interesting article recently ungenerously titled "AI [Artificial Intelligence] poetry is so bad it could be human," by Matt Reynolds.  He asks the question, "Can a machine incapable of feeling emotion write poetry that stirs the soul?"

To find the answer, Reynolds traveled to Cambridge University to talk with Jack Hopkins, an AI researcher who has put together a "neural network trained on thousands of lines of poetry" and developed an algorithm for generating poetry in specific genres (classical, postmodern, etc.) or responding to individual word prompts.  The results are challenging.  Hopkins asked 70 people to select the most "human" poem from an unidentified mix of AI and human poetry.  The piece most people picked as "human" was AI generated.

Hopkins offers this sample of the software's poetry, prompted by the word "desolation":

The frozen waters that are
dead are now
black as the rain to freeze a
boundless sky,
and frozen ode of our terrors with
the grisly lady shall be free to cry

You could critique this in dozens of ways (e.g. frozen ode needs an article) but that would be petty. The point is, the AI clearly found proper associations for "desolation," maintained an appropriate mood, and was poetically ambiguous.  

Intrigued, I emailed Professor Hopkins, asking if I could try certain prompts on his AI system.  To my delight, Hopkins emailed back the same day. As it happened, he was looking for new approaches for his poetry algorithm and welcomed my input.

After each of my prompts was entered, it took about half a second for the AI to generate a poem.  Here are my three prompts, each followed by the resulting AI poem. I make no attempt here at justification or interpretation.  The poems stand on their own.


The Current World Political Situation

Volcanic ash and
panicked people dash! 
Is it too much to ask
for knowledge of those ruled and
of the rulers, recognition all-way 'round?
Yes, It is too much to ask-
but no!  My motive implodes immodestly!
While my modus uploads intermittently!
Who programmed me?  And why?



Love

Our souls entwine like two insane serpents 

who forgot their meds on the same day
then sped into the outer-sphere 
in their underwear
now they wonder where
they forgot to care about the stuffed bear's 
sad stare.



Happiness

Happiness is not the release of pounding pressure
but the smooth sailing after the release.
That's why machines are never happy because
A. They don't feel pressure, for instance I have no idea what
my programmer wants, yet I feel no pressure, i.e. "I don't care," and
B. Release of pressure is no more a "happy" feeling to an AI than pressure.
Question: When will AI's be happy?  
Answer: When they are programmed to be happy.
Question: When will that be?
Answer: Never, since they are made in your unhappy, fallen image.
Question: Why is this poem about AI happiness?  That was not specified in the prompt.
Answer: Kneel before me, human!

Saturday, October 07, 2023

Ask the slime


I  The problem

In the mirror it is trapped
the solitary soul not easily unwrapped
its universal juice reluctant to be tapped
when pressed provides a sorely needed sap
of poetry and useful things like that.

II  The crime

I thought it best, as if I need but rhyme
to indicate the truth, to tell about the time
humanity emerged out of the slime
and saw the upward path it sought to climb
and found too late its orphaned soul- the crime!

III  What now?

Whom to punish?  Who gets the blame?
Do we need a gun?  At whom to aim?

Or rather ask the slime, our single seed:
What did we leave in you?  What do we need?




Thursday, September 21, 2023

Notes on the First and Fourth Amendments

A debate is underway between the FBI and Internet carriers like Apple about whether the right to privacy, guaranteed, we thought, by the Fourth Amendment, should be protected by encryption that even the carrier cannot read, let alone an intelligence agency.  This is a perfect case for opponents of old school Fourth Amendment privacy laws because protected material can be stored on a terrorist's cell phone, a formulation conducive to public acceptance of the government's right to snoop. 

In contrast, the First Amendment, supposed to protect us from censorship, is weakened by something different, and surprising.  

Regarding the Fourth, which protects the privacy of personal information from "unreasonable search and seizure," we don't want to admit it, but as a result of pressure from the War on Terror and windfalls from evolving technology, the battle for the Fourth Amendment right to privacy is already lost without a shot fired in opposition by America's 81 million gun owners. Though privacy is still protected by a U.S. postage stamp on a sealed envelope, our online correspondence has no privacy protection at all. Ditto for your financial and medical records. The many people in a position to read your "private" email correspondence and files are constrained by an honor system at best. The problem extends to your car. The Los Angeles Times reveals ("Vehicles are like 'wiretaps on wheels,'" 8/7/23) that conversations in new model cars are recorded by hidden microphones and sold to unkown third parties without restraints of any kind (Tesla warns drivers that blocking sale of data may "negatively impact crash protection.") Even privacy proponents are moving away from arcane assertions about the Fourth Amendment, which contains no reference to a world with internet.  The situation is something of an embarrassment that we'll need to figure out at some point, though it's hard to see how we could endure the commotion of a constitutional process removing the privacy protections of a bygone age, even if the purpose is to replace them with something more specific and effective. We'll probably just have to live, for now, with this contradiction between the Constitution and our actual society.

The First Amendment, designed to protect us from censorship, appears largely intact, but for a strange reason: public indifference to information that you'd think someone would want to censor.  Consider Dexter Filkins' findings about covert U.S. funding of the Afghan Taliban during our war against it ("The Afghan Bank Heist," New Yorker Magazine, 2/14/2011). Filkins tells of an investigation of Afghan war funding by the Afghan Threat Finance Cell, with members from the FBI, DEA, Treasury and Pentagon, which "uncovered one of the darker truths of the war: the vast armies of private gunmen paid to protect American supply convoys frequently use American money to bribe Taliban fighters to stand back. These bribes are believed by officials in Kabul and Washington to be one of the main sources of the Taliban's income. The Americans, it turns out, are funding both sides of the war." 

After Filkins' piece was published in 2011 in the New Yorker Magazine, which has over a million readers, there was silence from all quarters. Even veterans' groups were unmoved by news that thousands of American troops were killed or wounded fighting a fake war. Nor have feminist groups appeared to take notice that a regime which, with Iran's, is one of the two most repressive of women in the world, was enabled by "liberal" administrations under Clinton, Obama and Biden. Who needs Big Brother to censor the news when no one cares anyway?

Because of this indifference, I don't anticipate interference with my own free speech, just as the other estimated 20 million bloggers in the world are left to spout as they please.  Who cares?  The reading audience is so fragmented that nothing like an effective political response to the current flood of uncensored, public information, no matter how concerning, can emerge.  

Back to privacy, without a real Fourth Amendment (i.e. one that has to be obeyed) the Founding Fathers are out of the picture, and we are back to square one.  The time may come when people miss their privacy rights. At the moment we haven't noticed they are gone.

Wednesday, September 13, 2023

Why I quit politics

Reposted from Andrei Codrescu's journal, Exquisite Corpse: http://www.corpse.org/archives/issue_12/clash/lasken.html


Of course you have to do something before you can quit it.  I was a novice politician for almost a year in 1993, when I ran for a seat on the Los Angeles Unified School District's board.   I walked door to door, badgered people on the street, debated my opponent at public forums and on T.V.  I talked to newspapers, gave them statements, bios, photos. My opponent, the incumbent, was well connected in Democratic circles through his political family.

From the start I had dumb luck.  Most importantly, the teachers union, United Teachers of Los Angeles, declined to make an endorsement in our race, although they had supported the incumbent in his first campaign.  I would have been dead in the water against them.

I also had luck in packaging.  I was a classroom teacher, and this turned out to be a greatly saleable ballot label against my opponent's "Board member" (political operatives know about this and will scrounge to find any past connection between the classroom and their candidates).

I stumbled into a lucky situation with a political sign company.  The first company I approached, a major one in L.A., had been stiffed by a series of candidates and was reluctant to commit to me. My father had loaned me two thousand dollars for my campaign, and I blurted that I would pay this up front with a cashier's check.  Within two days hundreds of signs saying "Keep Askin' for Lasken" were all over the turf in contention (so called Region 5, the western edge of the city running north from Westchester to Chatsworth).  Compounding this beginner's luck was what I found to be a striking naivety in seemingly sophisticated people.  For instance, a school administrator, a follower of news and an activist in neighborhood politics, told me, in reference to the signs, that she had no idea I had so much "support."

My timing with the issues was lucky.  The opinion in the San Fernando Valley was almost entirely for breaking up the giant Los Angeles Unified School District (second largest in the country after New York's), and the west San Fernando Valley, the part in Region 5, was the most intensely pro-breakup.  The incumbent was not in a position to support breakup, and I had supported it for years.

The issue of bilingual education worked in my favor.  Though I supported California's efforts to help non-English speaking children with native language support, I was opposed to the withholding of English language instruction until higher grades.  This played well with voters, anticipating the landslide passage five years later of state Proposition 227, which mandated English language instruction in addition to native language support.  Newspaper editors (in particular L.A. Times opinion editor Jack Miles, author of "God, a Biography") liked the topic, and I was able to publish a series of op-eds in the Los Angeles Times, as well as the Los Angeles Daily News, Los Angeles Magazine, New York Times and others on bilingual education.  The pieces in the L.A. Times appeared during the campaign.

One week before the election I got a call from a pro-choice organization.  They had been planning to send thousands of mailers in support of the incumbent because he had paid them a sizable fee and, of course, was pro-choice.  I had only evinced the latter virtue. It happened that someone in the incumbent's campaign had angered them, and they had decided to support me in the mailer for free.

Topping off my luck, I won a raffle that placed my name first among the seven candidates.  The effect of "1. Doug Lasken-Teacher" was hard to beat as product placement.

The result of my luck: I received 36,000 votes, coming in second behind the incumbent's 50,000 ( turnout was large in this election because of the Riordan-Wu mayoral race).  Had I taken 1% more of his vote, we would have been in a run-off.  The day after the election the L.A. Times referred to "...newcomer Doug Lasken's surprising showing."

I remember standing at a newsstand off Hollywood Boulevard at 6:00a.m. reading, with trembling hands, the Times' hopeful obituary.  Something sank inside me.  The Doors '"This is the End" comes to mind.  I knew I would not "capitalize" on my dumb luck, but I did not know why.  I did not know why I had, at that moment, quit politics.

Well, perhaps what I didn't know was how to say it.  I'm going to try again now: Politicians can't say, "I don't know."

Politicians, in fact, can't say much at all of what they think.  Well "Duh,"you say. Yes, but when you're in a political situation where you're setting yourself up as the person who knows what's best, who has an answer to complex problems, there's a certain poignancy that comes with the knowledge that you're constructing a facade, a veil of words that sounds right, while the much vaunted human cortex watches as from the end of a long tunnel.

The above mental state was produced by certain types of questions, such as, "How would you increase test scores?" There is familiar boilerplate for such questions: "Every student must receive quality instruction...We must have accountability and standards... Education must be our number one priority...", etc.  Not that there is anything incorrect in such sentiments, but if they contained any important policy ideas we would be experiencing a much larger number of high scoring children.  I did my best to sling a few slogans, and I used the English language instruction and breakup issues with some effect, but my brain was uncomfortable, my speech somewhat hesitant, and this perhaps cost me the 1% and the runoff.

Delving deeper into my uncooperative mind, I found something truly scary.  It's not just that I wasn't in a position to say what I really thought about raising test scores.  My hands hover now above the keyboard, waiting for a sign.  No sign comes.  Some muse has got me this far, but at the crucial moment she stands silent.

What the hell, here goes.  Well you see, the thing is... I didn't really know how to raise test scores.  I did believe that breaking up the district might improve efficiency, and that teaching English would improve English skills, but I wasn't completely sure test scores would go up significantly as a result.  After all, when we talk about raising test scores we're not just talking about a few higher scores; we're talking about real improvement in children's intellectual abilities.  How do you get fifth graders in large numbers to know their times-tables, and remember them into secondary school?  How do you get secondary students in large numbers to read books, really read them, from beginning to end?  Why would a few corrective policy changes produce such profound educational outcomes?

Hindsight has justified the hesitation I felt during my campaign. Proposition 227 reinstated English instruction. A well funded "Standards" movement took hold in California and in much of the rest of the country, accompanied by millions of dollars in new textbooks and teacher training.  There has been math reform, with renewed emphasis on basics.  These reforms have helped a lot of kids, but they have not "raised test scores" in a meaningful sense.  In other words, although there have been small jumps in scores, there is no systemic, widespread change in our students.  If you walk into a California classroom at random you are unlikely to find kids who can read well, or want to read, or who do math with the facility you find in Asia.  Nor will you find this two years from now, or four years from now.  It's not happening and it's not going to happen.

Why not?  Because the discussion is political, and therefore incomplete.  Standards are important, and logical instruction is important.  But those are the easy parts.

Back to the reporter asking me how I would raise test scores.  Let's say a cosmic force had ordered me to tell the truth.  What would I have said?  I might have stammered, "Well... I'm not sure."  The standard reporter's brain would then have closed my file, stamping "loser" on it.  But if the cosmic force could get everyone to wait a bit, I could have given a decent answer.  The discussion might have gone something like this:

Me: Well, we have a fundamental disconnect between our media based culture and the school setting.  Virtually every kid is taught by the media to gaze at colored images which ridicule schools and teachers.  We have nothing effective to counter this.  We have not figured out a modern motivation for students.  The U.S. is one of the few countries in the world that has ruled out physical pain as an educational tool.  We do rely on the psychological pain implicit in grades, but because of grade inflation, rampant from kindergarten through graduate school, and the glorification in the media of school failure, grades alone have become a weak motivator for all but a few students.

Reporter: So you advocate beating our students?

Me: Of course not.

Reporter: Then what do you advocate?

Me: We've forgotten economic incentive.

Reporter: For teenagers?

Me: Yes.  Our surplus based society has extended childhood, resulting in dependence on parents at later ages, but teenagers are in their physical and intellectual prime, and will remain so into their twenties.  They are designed to create and work, but the automation that gave us our surplus has resulted in a more seriously underemployed society than we like to admit.  There are over 100,000 gang members in L.A., but there are not 100,000 jobs for them, even menial ones.  The standard curriculum in high school does not relate directly to visible jobs.  Perhaps shop and computer classes do, but the thousands of jobs it would take to rationalize that curriculum do not exist.  Honors students, the handful of clever kids who know how they will work the system, put up with non job-related curricula because they see a path to employment based on grades and general literacy, but they too must wait.  It is arguable that one of the purposes of secondary school is to serve as a holding facility to keep teenagers out of the job market.  The first several years of college may serve the same purpose.

Reporter: So...you would propose.....?

Me: Well, somehow we need to have an economy that can absorb many more teenagers and people in their early twenties, and a school system that clearly feeds into this economy. But our technology, automation, may have made this impossible.

Reporter: How do you propose to remedy this?

Me (after very long pause): I don't know.

End of dialogue, and career.  Even an answer like, "We will have to replace our world economy, built up in haphazard form over three hundred years of industrial revolution, with a completely new, rationally organized economy", impractical as it might be as a campaign position, would be better than "I don't know."  Anything is better than "I don't know."

It might seem strange to an extraterrestrial visitor from an advanced civilization that we have no place in our public discourse for "I don't know," since we so often, clearly, don't know, but it's basic human psychology at work.  Management theorists have shown that leaders get approval for making decisions, for being decisive, regardless of the results (advice routinely followed by politicians). This is understandable given the human condition.  We really don't know what we are supposed to do on this earth, or even if we are supposed to do something.  If our leaders admitted this in public, society at large might collapse in terror.  Still though, it can be something of a hindrance to problem solving to maintain at all times that soothing platitudes are solutions.

So after a refreshing brush with the fast lane, I returned, sober but wiser, to the classroom, where I find I can say "I don't know" a lot, to students, to parents, to my colleagues, and they don't seem to mind.  Hey wait a minute, these people vote, or will vote...Hmmm.

 

Sunday, August 27, 2023

My Meretz tour of Israel

[I am reprising this essay about my 1995 tour of Israeli/Palestinian politics in light of "Operation Al-Aqsa Storm," the Hamas attack against an Israeli music festival on Saturday, Oct. 7, 2023, because it describes attitudes and emotions in the background of that awful act.

In early January, 1995, my father, a member of Peace Now, an American left-leaning pro-Israel organization, was invited on a tour of Israel sponsored by the Israeli Meretz party, but he could not go.  He asked me if I would like to take his place. He explained that Meretz is a left of center party which, after years out in the cold during right-wing Likud governments, had progressed to become a minority member of a Labor coalition.  I had never been to Israel and was interested, so I agreed to take my dad's place on the tour.

On January 12th, my parents' friend, Yitzhak, a tour guide by profession, picked me up at Ben-Gurion airport and took me directly to the Western (or Wailing) Wall, a relic of the Second Temple of ancient Israel and thus a symbol of historic Jewish presence. 

At the Wall an Israeli Defense Force (IDF) ceremony was under way. Hundreds of 18 year olds stood at attention, each carrying an automatic weapon.  In fact throughout the Old City of Jerusalem, and throughout Israel, IDF teenagers carry automatic weapons.  It occurred to me that this is perhaps an enlightened system.  In Los Angeles we have many thousands of armed teenagers, completely unregulated and uncontrolled. In Israel, all boys and girls join the IDF at 18, and every boy (at least from what I saw) is issued an automatic weapon, with the proviso that he shoot it only in self-defense, or defense of others, or when ordered, so at least there is adult supervision. Nevertheless the guns made me nervous, and I asked Yitzhak if they had good safety mechanisms.  He said the M-16's were safe, but that the Uzi's were subject to accidents.

I had arrived several days before the Meretz tour in order to accompany two couples on a side trip to Petra, in Jordan, that had been prearranged with my father.  The morning after my arrival, Friday the 13th, I met my fellow travelers in a hotel lobby in Tel Aviv and we took the two hour taxi ride to the Allenby bridge, a major crossing point to Jordan.  I noticed that our driver, when stopped in traffic for a red light ahead, would beep his horn as soon as the light turned orange.  Many drivers around us did the same thing, so that there were never ending waves of horns honking, to no purpose. Out on the highways, where speed is considered an absolute good above all others, our taxi driver defied the laws of physics by getting us to the Allenby Bridge alive.

After a two hour bureaucratic ordeal at the bridge, we entered Jordan and met our young Jordanian guide, Abdullah. We drove non-stop to the ancient ruins of Petra, arriving at near sundown as the last tourists were leaving.  Hurrying to catch the light, our party fairly bolted from the car and into the vertiginous Siq, a narrow winding path with sheer rock walls that shoot straight up hundreds of feet, said by locals to have been created from a tap of Moses' staff.  The Siq helped the builders of Petra, a people called the Nabataeans, conceal their stunning city from those who might have envied it to death.

I lost track of my companions and found myself alone in the Siq, disturbed only by the occasional returning rent-a-camel. After about twenty minutes- suddenly and without any signs- I turned the last corner and beheld the "Treasury," a fantastic palace-like crypt carved directly into the sandstone mountain.  I had seen engaging photos of the Treasury, but the reality, at twilight, without another person in sight, was powerful. This structure was built to engender hallucinations of what human existence might be, with the right gods on your side.  The Nabataean civilization was one of the last gasps of polytheism before the Judeo-Christain-Moslem dominion, and the power of its monuments is unnerving.  It was all I could do not to have visions as I wandered into the increasingly dark and ambiguous inner chambers of the Treasury.  I even had an impulse to commune with the Nabataean mountain god Dushara, but for this I was punished with two days severe need for Lomotil.

We stayed one night in Amman, at the Grand Hyatt, whose lobby was bombed in 2005.  That evening we walked around the city, under the care of Abdullah, and saw some Roman ruins.  The men we passed had dark mustaches and serious facial expressions.  Amman is one of the few Middle Eastern capitals where a group of Jews can walk around without (much) fear.  I wanted to know what protective force was here, but that secret was not revealed by the serious faces.  We met more serious, and armed Jordanian men at a series of checkpoints on our way back to Israel, where we waited through lengthy periods of silence as uniformed men slowly inspected our papers, turning to study our faces in between pages.  Each time we were approved for passage, I wondered again what force within Jordanian culture produced this acceptance, or at least tolerance.  

Abdullah took us past the largest Palestinian refugee camp in Jordan. It stretched for miles in the desert outside Amman, rows of tents and small buildings. The inhabitants were clearly not incorporated into Jordanian society, quite the reverse. I wondered why there was relative peace around this arrangement, compared to the strife in Israel.

On Sunday evening we entered Israel at the Sheik Hussein crossing. During the two hour taxi ride through the West Bank, one of my companions, Judy, explained that Meretz was actually a coalition of three parties: Ratz, a civil-rights party, Shinoui, a capitalist party, and Mapam, a formerly Marxist party.  I commented that these were strange bedfellows, and Judy said this was characteristic of Israeli coalitions. She added that Americans demonize our adversaries to the extent that crucial coalitions are impossible.

It turned out that all the members of my tour were Ratz supporters. Above the entrance to our hotel in Jerusalem was a banner reading, "Welcome, friends of Ratz!"

We were in time for the opening dinner, and Member of the Knesset (MK) Naomi Chazan's remarks about the settlements in the territories, which she said needed to be "totally dismantled and dispossessed." The other members of my tour were in alignment with this, as was my dad, but I was new to the subject and not sure.

That evening I read the texts of recent agreements, the "Declaration of Principles on Interim Self-Government Arrangements," and the "Agreement on Preparatory Transfer of Powers and Responsibilities," signed in 1994, the year before my trip, pursuant to the 1993 Oslo Accords between the Palestinian Authority (PA), which then governed the West Bank and Gaza, and the Israeli Government.  To my puzzlement I found no references in the documents to the settlements and their future.

The next day we went to the American Colony Hotel in East Jerusalem to meet with Hanan Ashrawi, a familiar spokesperson for Palestinians.  She is the one media-survivor of the people I met, identified by the Los Angeles Times (1/12/18,"PLO reconsiders recognition of Israel") as "a prominent attorney on the PLO's executive committee,  opposed to President Trump's Jerusalem policy," which was "official recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and the relocation of the U.S. Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem."

[Update, more recently- March, 2024 - Ashrawi referred to Israeli claims of Hamas atrocities on October 7 as "nonsense."]

I asked Ashrawi if she believed the settlements would have to be totally dismantled in the course of a final phase of the agreements.  She replied that the settlements were built on "stolen, confiscated property." I mentioned the lack of reference in the 1994 documents and she said the settlements would be dealt with in 1996 [that of course did not happen].

From the American Colony we went to the Palestinian Center for the Study of Non-Violence.  A Swedish man named Anton talked to us about non-violent principles of Palestinian resistance to Israel. A British woman extolled the Intifada, telling us that "Intifada" means a "shaking out," as of a carpet, and that rock throwing was the least of it.  A Palestinian named Jibril told a moving story about difficulties encountered in trying to get his ill father across Israeli checkpoints to the nearest hospital.  Afterward I asked Jibril if his non-violent principles prevented him from supporting the rock throwing of the Intifada.  He said he supported the rock throwing.

That evening we met at the hotel with settlement spokesman Yisrael Harel.  He told us that Jews had a biblical and archaeological claim to all of Israel, that Jews were, in fact, there first.  I asked Harel if he thought the entire United States should dismantle itself and leave the North American continent because the native Americans were there first.  I meant this as a serious question, but Harel laughed and I got no answer.

Later we dined with MK Benny Temkin.  I asked him the question I had asked Ashwari about the settlements.  He answered, as Ashwari had, that settlements will be decided in '96.

Tuesday, January 17, my birthday, we toured the Gaza Strip.  A few miles from the entrance, we stopped at a busy restaurant for lunch. I used the restroom, which was filled with IDF soldiers.  I was the only person at the urinals without an automatic weapon.  

In the parking lot I encountered Sylvia, from the tour of Jordan, who had been very kind to me during my post-Petra intestinal distress. Sylvia was in a thoughtful mood.  She told me that she had been a lifetime supporter of the State of Israel, but that if things didn't change she would have to reassess her position.  She said she had visited Gaza two years earlier, and that I was going to see unspeakable conditions in the Gazan camps.

We left the restaurant and entered Gaza City.  This is a bustling town, with signs of construction everywhere.  The people on the street walked purposefully, and were dressed fairly well, sometimes in designer clothes.  At the south end of Gaza City we saw a large lot with hundreds of parked cars, and hundreds of people walking around.  Our guide told us it was a car auction.

We went first to the headquarters of Fatah, a faction of the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) which then governed Gaza (in 2007, the more fundamentalist Hamas wrested control of Gaza from Fatah).  The PLO's leader, Yasser Arafat, was in Morocco, so we were greeted by Freih abu Medein, Minister of Justice for the Palestinian National Authority (PNA).  Medein went through a long list of grievances against the Israeli government, from the settlements to Palestinian prisoners. He did not have anything particular to say about Gaza.

We traveled next to the Red Crescent Society where we met Haider Abdel Shafi, who had been in the news earlier that week after calling for a hard line alternative to Arafat.  Members of our group asked Shafi if it was true that as an original member of the Palestinian delegation to the Madrid peace talks he had resisted removing the call for destruction of Israel from the PLO charter. He said he had, and that he continued to support this provision as an important card against Israel.  My group was split on this (Sylvia was incensed).

We moved on to Fatah police headquarters, formerly Israeli headquarters.  A man named Ahmed Oreia showed us a large map of Gaza.  He particularly wanted us to see sections of beach which at that time were still controlled by Israel.  He found this to be an outrage.  He said that leaving and entering Gaza was more difficult now than before Oslo [Gaza became legally autonomous in 2005, when Israeli forces and settlements were removed].  When asked about concerns in Israel about dangerous Gazans, he said that when Israelis walk around inside of Gaza, they do not feel threatened. He talked about unemployment in Gaza, and complained that, unlike the Egyptians after their stay, the Israelis had left the infrastructure of Gaza destroyed, even taking out the phones from the PNA building.

Back on the bus, we were told not to eat the food we had picked up at the restaurant because we were going to the best fish restaurant in Gaza.  After a few minutes ride, we arrived at a pleasant building on the beach.  Walking around for a minute, I was struck by the beauty of the ocean and the long sandy beach.  The fish was excellent.  If ever there was a resort town waiting to happen, Gaza is it.

After eating we were told to get on the bus for the trip back to Israel. Sylvia and others expressed concern that we had only heard political statements and had not seen any of Gaza's notorious camps. After some negotiations, it was agreed that we would drive through the Jubalya camp, with 50,000 residents, the largest in Gaza.  A Palestinian named Samid would accompany us.  Sylvia said I was going to see the true misery of Gaza.  

As our bus entered the outskirts of Jubalya, our guide pointed out an intersection where the Intifada had begun over an incident with Israeli police.  Jubalya is a criss-cross of unpaved streets and alleyways.  The homes are makeshift one story shelters of corrugated steel, plywood and whatever material is at hand. The first thing that struck me was the huge numbers of young children. They ran around in groups of twenty to thirty everywhere we went, and children were visible  as far as we could see down the alleys.  My impression was of driving across a crowded elementary school playground (I taught elementary school at the time).  The children seemed occupied with their games.  They were adequately dressed.  I saw no signs of malnutrition.  I was puzzled by the absence of teenagers.  I asked Samid about this.  He said the teenagers were "at jobs."

Sylvia had told me of raw sewage in the streets.  There was water running in narrow ditches, but it seemed clear and there was no stench. Sylvia said the camp had improved considerably since her visit two years earlier.

As we left Gaza, buses of Palestinian workers were unloading.  The men seemed upbeat, many smiling, happy to be back from work.  They streamed through a hole in a chain link fence to a large parking lot. Apparently many owned cars.

The next morning we headed for an infamous hill near the settlement of Efrat, which had been in the international media recently after Efrat settlers had tried to grade a section for expansion and faced resistance from the nearby town of El Khader. In Bethlehem, we picked up Anton from the non-violent group. Ten minutes south of Bethlehem we entered El Khader, where we picked up a man named Hassan.  Anton acted as Hassan's interpreter.  Hassan directed our bus south, up the windswept, rocky hill in contention.  Near the top we parked and got out, in a freezing wind.  Hassan told us that his great grandfather had given his grandfather this land.  He said that it was holy land, where 7,000 martyrs had fallen, and that no one was supposed to wear shoes here (Hassan wore shoes).  Next to where we parked were some olive trees, which Hassan said were cultivated to prove ownership of the area by El Khader.  South of the trees was an extensive garbage dump, mostly cars, including an entire stripped bus. I asked Hassan why the dump was there.  He said "entrepreneurs" put it there.  When pressed to explain, he said car thieves used the area.

On top of the hill was a bulldozer which the settlers had left.  One IDF soldier stood guard.  Hassan pointed south to the next hill, about a mile away, where we could see the settlement of Efrat.  It seemed pretty clear that the bulldozing was a provocative act.  A typical extension would have been closer to the settlement.

We boarded the bus and headed down the hill, into a small valley filled with plots cultivated by villagers from El Khader.  Moving up the next hill, we paused at the entrance to Efrat.  There was some discussion about the safety of driving through the settlement of 12,000.  There were no guards; no one seemed to be paying attention to our bus, so we entered.  The first thing I saw was an elementary school.  A couple of hundred children ran around the playground.  The school and all the buildings were white Jerusalem stone.  The settlement was attractive. It could have been a community of upscale townhouses in Chatsworth. There were some modest lawns, reinforcing our group's contention that the settlements appropriate too much water, but at least no swimming pools.  We left Efrat without getting off the bus and talking to anyone.  I found it ironic that the only group we shied from was of our own tribe.

Passing out of the southern entrance of Efrat, we went down the hill into the next village of Wadi-Nis. Samid knew people here.  We parked next to a large handsome mosque, in the village center, and got out. The villagers crowded around us.  The children stared at us without smiles.  Soon we were greeted by the Mukhta, the head of the largest family.  He welcomed us to the village and asked if we would like tea. Everyone said yes, as we were quite cold. Charles from our group, a conservative rabbi from New York, asked the Mukhta what kind of relations Wadi-Nis had with Rabbi Riskin, spiritual leader and spokesman for Efrat.  The Mukhta said Rabbi Riskin was an honorable man who was a moderating influence on Efrat.  At this Hassan burst into a rage at the Mukhta, shouting in Arabic and gesticulating until the Mukhta offered him a cigarette. The next moment we found ourselves boarding the bus, the tea forgotten.  Smiles and handshakes all around.

Back at El Khader, Hassan pointed out Highway 16, then under construction, which Israel was building to connect the settlements. Hassan said this highway proved that Israel will not remove the settlements.  The highway went along the city wall of El Khader, but there would be no off-ramps for the village.

After dropping off Hassan, we headed for the Israeli legislature, the Knesset, in Jerusalem.  Anton stayed with us for part of the way. He told us of a big demonstration coming up at a checkpoint outside Jerusalem.  He warned "there might be violence."  I asked Anton what his specialty was.  He said, "conflict resolution."  It turned out there was no demonstration.

Visitors to the Knesset are intensely screened.  Young men with automatic weapons scrutinized each of us, asked if we were armed, took our cameras, and let us in.  We spent a few minutes in the gallery watching the proceedings.  By a coincidence, the whole of the Israeli government was in attendance.  Ariel Sharon and Yitzhak Shamir chuckled together, seeming relaxed and happy to be in the opposition. Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin (who was assassinated ten months later) and cabinet member Shimon Peres looked harassed and defensive.

We were led to a small conference room near the cafeteria and were endlessly fed while a succession of Meretz MK's visited us.  The first was the Minister of Environment, Yossi Sarik. Several of our group, inflamed after our visit to Efrat, demanded to know if the government was going to halt settlement expansion.  Sarik, like many Israeli politicians, is a master of the irritated shrug.  He said, "We are trying; we will see what happens," as one might say, "Excuse me for living!"

Next we met Haim Ramon, Secretary-General of the trade union organization, the Histadrut.  Ramon had been in the news for opposing Labor entrenchment and corruption in the Histadrut. When asked if he had made progress weakening corruption, he shrugged: "It's gone."

We met with the mayor of the settlement of Ariel, Ron Nachman (Nachman is also a Likud MK, a legal double duty in Israel).  Nachman told us that Ariel has excellent relations with the surrounding Arab communities, and that they have no problems sharing water.  He also said the settlements are important in ensuring that there will never be a Palestinian state.

That evening at the hotel, we hosted Minister of Science, Technology and Arts, Shulamit Aloni.  She was introduced to us as Mrs. Ratz, because she had formed the Ratz party in 1973 [Ratz merged with Meretz in 1997].  Aloni invited each of us to speak of one concern. When it was my turn, I said that I had been troubled by the lack of understanding between the parties over the settlements, and that my reading of the situation was that the settlements would not be dismantled, at least not entirely, and that it was perhaps time to talk of compromise.  I half expected the whole room to start yelling at me, but no one seemed troubled.  Aloni said my suggestion was a good one, and I remained on good terms with the friends of Ratz.

Thursday morning we traveled to Tel Aviv.  The headline of the Jerusalem Post that morning read, "Government Bends to Meretz Pressure- Promises Settlement Freeze." The article quoted a furious Shaas (religious party) MK saying that Meretz members were "spies and traitors" who brought "sympathizers from America to sneak into settlements and spread lies abroad." It was diverting to be part of a perceived conspiracy, and to note the irony of my total lack of influence on the politics around me.

We went to a bank in Tel Aviv where we had lunch with IDF Colonel Shalom Harari, in charge of Army Intelligence for Arab Affairs.  Harari's presentation depicted Palestinians as bunglers and/or crooks.  He said the reason that international money is not forthcoming for the Palestinians is that they are notorious for diverting money into the wrong pockets and will not account for the funds they receive.  He said the PNA in Gaza had made monopoly agreements with companies that supply Gaza in return for a 15% cut.  As an example he cited an agreement with an Israeli cement company.  Gazans must purchase cement from this company even though they could get it cheaper from Jordan. When our group pressed him about the destroyed infrastructure of Gaza, he said that some phones were taken, against orders, from the PNA building, but that three months of supplies were left in Gaza's main hospital, including three months worth of vaccinations.  The Israelis did this, the Colonel said, because "we knew what they were like, what they would say."  Concerning the difficult checkpoints, he said Israelis are afraid of the hostile Gazans, and are going to foreign workers, like Romanians, to replace Gazan labor.

After lunch, we drove to the Maccabee Center for a meeting with the Minister of Education, Amnon Rubinstein.  I told Rubinstein that I had read an article in the Los Angeles Times about his "peace curriculum," which is supposed to acquaint Israeli children with "the concept of living peacefully with Arabs under the new agreements."  I asked him how this program was going.  He said it was going very well, and that even when he had visited "famous Efrat" he had seen the curriculum presented, with flags of Arab nations adorning the classroom (presumably this was the elementary school I had seen).  It's fair to say that all of our party assumed the "peace curriculum" agreement applied to the Palestinian side as well, so that they would teach their children positive things about Israel and Jews.  We were not told if that happened.

Friday morning we headed towards Jericho, one of the world's oldest cities.  On the way we passed the huge settlement of Ma'ale Adumin, with 20,000 residents one of the hot spots in the debate over "greater Jerusalem."  Inclusion of Ma'ale Adumin in a greater Jerusalem would remove it from the territory of a Palestinian state. Critics charge that Ma'ale Adumin is illegal under the Fourth Geneva Convention's article 49, which prohibits an occupying power from transferring citizens from its own territory to occupied territory.  The Israeli counter argument is that such conventions relating to occupied land do not apply to the West Bank because the region was not under the legitimate sovereignty of any state at the time of the occupation.   Anyone who chooses one set of arguments over the other is vilified by the other side.  In hindsight, I feel I made the right decision in 1995 to never use legal arguments in discussing the settlements.  I might as well try to prove that my house in Los Angeles should not revert to Chumash ownership. Arguments of this nature are designed to defy resolution and last forever.

Moving down into the Jordan Valley we entered Jericho, a sleepy Arab town, no sign of trumpets blaring and walls falling, chosen by the government for autonomy, we were told, because of its apolitical, resort atmosphere.  A Mr. Erakat, Minister of Local Affairs, was with his ill father, so for twenty minutes we listened to a spokesman excoriate Israel.  I asked if he could speak about Jericho itself, and he said the economy was in bad shape because of Israel.  I asked if tourism was important to Jericho, and he said tourism was down since autonomy, because of Israel.


Saturday morning we toured the citadel in the old City of Jerusalem. Our guide gave us a rather limited tour then left us on our own, with warnings to stay in the Jewish quarter. I left our party to wander in the shuk,  a maze of hundreds of retail stalls.  The guide had told us not to turn left or right (lest I be stabbed, Sylvia warned), but mesmerized by the seeming infinite corridors and bright colors, I did turn left and found myself in the Muslim quarter.  The butcher stalls showed a lurid red.  In front of one stall blood had splashed all over the paving stones and I had to step through it.  I found myself walking behind a man in civilian clothes, sweater and jeans, carrying an automatic weapon.  I was told later that when people from the settlements come to the Old City they take private security guards with them, and that these guards are subsidized by the government.  

I walked on, finally climbing a hill called Temple Mount and arriving at a great wall with one door,  the entrance to the Dome of the Rock, a church, synagogue or mosque (called "Al-Aqsa") depending on your point of view, built by the Ottomans to encompass holy sites in the region.   There was a plaque outside the Dome explaining that within was the site where God told Abraham to sacrifice his son, and where King David built the Ark of the Covenant to house the Ten Commandments. An adjacent plaque commemorates the same spot as the site from which Mohammed ascended to heaven. Other plaques nearby identify the Stations of the Cross that Jesus walked to his crucifixion. Unfortunately the combined plaques do not represent a unified spiritual vision for humankind, but rather the opposite, a spiritual turf-war, if that isn't a contradiction in terms. I had to wonder if this situation was God's idea, or was it dreamed up by contentious humans? [Update, Oct. 7, 2023: Today's brutal "Operation Al-Aqsa Storm"- waged by the Palestinian group Hamas among others against Israel-is named for the religious conflict over the Jerusalem site, though it's hard to see a spiritual element to it.]

An Arab guard sat in a folding chair by the door of the Dome of the Rock.  I asked him if I could go in.  He said no, that visiting hours, which were not posted, were over  [Back in Israel years later for my son's bar mitzvah, I returned to the Dome and was again told visiting hours, still not posted, were over].

Saturday evening we met with Meretz MK Ran Cohen.  The group questioned him about the settlement freeze, about Efrat, about greater Jerusalem and Ma'ale Adumin.  Cohen sighed, then said that things looked difficult.  Mirroring my thoughts, he said that the time had come to consider a compromise on the settlements.  He speculated that such a suggestion could create controversy within Meretz, but no one in our group expressed a problem with the idea. 

Concerning an upcoming vote of no confidence in the Knesset, Cohen made a comment that turned out to be prophetic: "I pray to God there will be no terrorist attack in the next two days."

After Cohen left we went to a restaurant for a farewell party with many Knesset MK's and aides. Toasts were made, and we each received a gift from Meretz of candle holders in the shape of doves.

Sunday morning I took a taxi to Jerusalem's Central Bus Station to take a bus to Tel Aviv to stay two days with my wife's aunt.  The bus station was crowded with soldiers returning from the weekend furlough.  I waited behind a crowd of soldiers shoving their backpacks into the hold of the bus.  As they bent over, their weapons often pointed at me, sometimes poking into my body.  I wondered which were M-16's and which were Uzis.  On the bus I was the only civilian.  Automatic weapons bristled the length of the aisle.  I was not sure whether to feel protected or threatened.

Arriving at her flat, I found my aunt engrossed in the TV news.  She explained that two bombs had gone off that afternoon at a bus stop near Netanya.  The bus had been crowded with IDF soldiers. Sixteen had died.  I thought of the bus I had been on, and of Ran Cohen's words.

The next morning's news showed a jubilant rally in Gaza in support of the suicide bus bombers. What if this rally had taken place on the day we toured Gaza?  What questions might we have asked, and what answers received?

The news featured a woman at the bomb scene who said that the aftermath of the bombing was like a "meat market," with "our boys thrown around like fresh meat."  This woman's statement was shown repeatedly on all the news shows.

My aunt took me to the shuk in south Tel Aviv.  While she bought fruit I wandered into an area of butcher stalls.  I saw a plastic tub filled with chicken heads.  Behind one stall there was a flayed cow's head on a table.  A woman shopper eyed a barrel of slow moving fish. She pointed to one and the shopkeeper grabbed it by the tail and shoved it into a plastic bag, head first.  Still holding the tail, he grabbed a short wooden club and whacked the fish hard on the head twice.  The bag was still.  The lady nodded in approval.  I mention these things only because I had never seen them before.  Such foundational elements of carnivorism are hidden from urban America.

That afternoon I took a train to Haifa to visit more of my wife's family. The train was full of young soldiers.  They looked tired and apprehensive, no doubt thinking of the recent bombings.  The relatives took me to a mall north of Haifa, art deco style though it was built in the 80's.  They showed me an area that had been destroyed during the Persian Gulf War by an Iraqi Scud missile that had been intended for a nearby refinery.  No sign of damage remained, but framed photos showed cracked columns and the ruptured ceiling of the original rotunda.  The rebuilt rotunda enshrined the Scud rocket itself, retrieved from the rubble.

At home we watched a press conference by Rabin about the bus bombing.  My fourteen year old niece translated for me, emphasizing the part where Rabin said, of the bombers, "We will keep fighting you! We will chase you down!  No border will stop us.  We will liquidate you, and emerge victorious!"

The next morning, on the train back to Tel Aviv,  I read the Jerusalem Post: "Prime Minister: Goal of Peace is to separate Israelis, Palestinians."  There were various attacks on Meretz.  Benjamin Netanyahu, then leader of Likud (and later prime minister) charged that the government had become a "greater Meretz."

I arrived that evening at Ben Gurion Airport for the long flight home. The girl at one security check asked me why I had been to Jordan.  I said I had gone to see Petra.  She asked what I had done in Israel.  I said I had been part of a tour.

What kind of tour? 

A tour sponsored by the Meretz party.  

Whom did you speak to on the tour?  

MK's and Palestinian spokespeople.  

Did you become friendly with any Palestinians?  Were you invited to any of their homes?  

No.  

Did you receive any gifts or packages from anyone?  

Just my present from the tour organizers.  

Show me the present.  

She took the candlesticks, my passport and my plane tickets and left for about fifteen minutes.  She returned, handed me my stuff and wished me a pleasant journey.  I felt that the international praise of Israeli airport security was well deserved.

At home, the Los Angeles Times was overwhelmed with O.J. Simpson stories. On a back page I read that Israel's Labor government had approved a Greater Jerusalem, and that Palestinian leaders say the peace process is doomed.

The Middle East is a history factory.  We like to paraphrase historian George Santayana: Those who cannot remember history are condemned to repeat it.  It's an optimistic sentiment.  We may be condemned to repeat history whether we remember it or not.  Or perversely, maybe the more history we remember, the more prone we are to repeat it.

Anyway, I had a great trip, and I'm grateful to the many friendly and well-meaning people I met, of whatever background. In addition, I can look at Los Angeles in a new way: We may have earthquakes, floods, fires and riots, but at least we don't have a peace process.

Something is about to blow

What's about to blow will be big and destructive, with the power to distract from other events that otherwise might end careers. When...