Posts
20 hours ago
Tuesday, 10 February 2009
EDUCATION IS ALL IN OUR MIND
I spent eight years of my early adulthood teaching high school - long enough to prove I could do it without the students cowing me, a real problem in Israeli schools full of cocky adolescents with zero tolerance for their elders. Actually, once I got the hang of compelling them to listen long enough that they started to learn, I mostly enjoyed it, and in all the years since have never again encountered such a concentration of fine minds as the more unruly 11th or 12th graders I used to confront.
So I'm not automatically into educational policies based on what you might call touchy-feely tactics of making the students feel good about themselves and what have you. Find the way to challenge them, and then never stop doing it, if you ask me. Ah, and employ fine teachers, who know their material and know their trade (or art, more likely).
Still, Richard E. Nisbett's op-ed column in the NYT explains why with some groups, a little bit of that is exactly what's needed - and not the large expensive and grandiose programs. I think his point is that with some groups, there's a societal handicap that convinces the kids they can't learn and succeed, so they don't; remove that by suggesting it's all about their efforts, not their identity, and they'll flourish. Sounds reasonable to me: set it up so they decide to learn, and they will.
taken from : Yaacov Lozowick's Ruminations (http://yaacovlozowick.blogspot.com/)
JUST JOURNALISM
While I'm linking to stuff without seriously reading it, Gavin sends us to the Just Journalism report on the Gaza Operation. Just Journalism is an outfit that has taken upon itself the hopeless and thankless task of holding British journalism to its own professional standards on issues of Israel and its neighborhood. I get bellyaches from doing this as a hobby; these folks deserve either a medal or a straitjacket, or both. Anyway, their Gaza report is here; if you ever get up in the morning with a feeling of unwanted elation, this will do the trick to get you back to normal.
taken from : Yaacov Lozowick's Ruminations (http://yaacovlozowick.blogspot.com/)
UNRWA
John Lindsay, who was apparently the top lawyer at UNRWA from 2002-2007, isn't exactly the type of person you'd expect to find at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. Still, someone had the inspired idea of hosting him, and the result seems to have been worth the effort. He has recently published a paper about what UNRWA does and what it could do better. I have so far only read the first few pages, in between other more pressing activities, but it certainly seems an item we need to be looking at (p. xi):
The most important change, the one mostrequired and least subject to rational disagreement,is the removal of citizens from recognized states—persons who have the oxymoronic status of “citizenrefugees”—from UNRWA’s jurisdiction. This wouldapply to the vast majority of Palestinian “refugees”in Jordan, as well as to some in Lebanon. If a Palestinianstate were created in Gaza and/or the WestBank, such a change would affect Palestinian refugeesin those areas. Meanwhile, for those who are stilldefined as refugees, UNRWA’s move toward greateremphasis on need-based assistance, as opposed tostatus-as-refugee-based assistance, should be accelerated.No justification exists for millions of dollarsin humanitarian aid going to those who can affordto pay for UNRWA services. In addition, UNRWAshould make the following operational changes: haltits one-sided political statements and limit itself tocomments on humanitarian issues; take additionalsteps to ensure the agency is not employing or providingbenefits to terrorists and criminals; and allowthe UN Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization(UNESCO), or some other neutral entity, toprovide balanced and discrimination-free textbooksfor UNRWA schools.
With the above changes, UNRWA would be betteraligned with what should be its ultimate objectives.For the Palestinians it serves, this means ending theirrefugee status and returning, after nearly sixty years, towhat most of them so desperately seek: normal lives.
According to Haaretz, the report is predictably raising hackles at UNRWA itself:
An UNRWA spokesman slammed the report, accusing the author of bias and a failure to employ a sufficiently wide range of sources.
"The agency is disappointed by the findings of the study, found it to be tendentious and partial, and regrets in particular the narrow range of sources used," Andrew Whitley, director of the UNRWA representative office at UN headquarters in New York, said.
"The study ignores the context in which UNRWA operates and the tight line the agency walks due to various pressures," Whitley said. "Someone reading this paper with no background would assume that the Israeli government was a benign actor. No mention is made of the occupation of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip."
Here's a proposed translation: Lindsay doesn't realize we're beholden to the Arab version of the story ("various pressures"), and his starting point isn't that Israel is the source of all evil. Sniff.
If I ever find the time I'll read and report, but now you know it's there, feel free not to wait for me. Go ahead, by all means.
takem from : Yaacov Lozowick's Ruminations (http://yaacovlozowick.blogspot.com/)
ON HAVING AN OPINION, AND PUBLICIZING ONE
Well, it looks like I'm getting flak for that previous post: do you mean to say, Yaacov, that one needs truly to be an expert and know the right languages before having an opinion? So here's some clarification:
First, there's a difference between having an opinion and publicizing it in a public forum, such as the BBC. The larger the forum, I'd argue, the greater care one ought to take when expressing one's opinion. Yes, I stand by that - and the BBC is one of the most public of forums the world can offer, and it even comes with a mantle of respectability that was acquired, sometimes at great price, over generations.
Second, if you read my response, it contained a twist: Not only was I castigating the ignorance of the BBC person, who lacks the qualifications to educate us on her topic; I was also saying that even after I had spent something like 15 years on acquiring the qualifications, some experts still felt I was wrong (and they may have been right).
Third, I pointed to the silliness of her methodology: in order to say something about the Israelis, she asked some Palestinians.
I was not saying one must have a PhD in order to have an educated opinion, nor that academia is necessarily better at reaching the truth than journalism. Actually, academia is often a poor way - look at Prof. Juan Cole. And journalism can be a very reasonable way for understanding reality - keep in mind the number of times I have praised Avi Issacahroff, a journalist who really knows what he's talking about.
That was my point. That some people take the time, acquire the languages, and make the effort - a never-ending one, by the way - to become experts. Other people don't. The first group are worth listening to, whether we like their opinions or not. The second are harmless if they talk to themselves, and an affront to our intelligence if they pontificate from a public stage.
To Shaul who reproves me for doing the same, my response is that I try not to. At times I link to things other people write, but as a general rule, I talk about the things I've acquired some expertize about: Jewish things, German things, American things. I'm told the Spanish are virulent antisemites these days: yet I haven't written about this, because I lack the language, the background and the context; so I leave that to others. Nor, to my best recollection, have I written about the Iranians, the Kurds, the Turks, or the Iraqis, even though they all touch upon the story I do tell. The two exceptions are the Palestinians and the Islamists. But even then, I try to be careful. Not knowing Arabic, the most I can say about the Islamists is that according to what I can see and read, they have patterns of cognition and behavior which resemble earlier patterns I actually do know a lot about, as an expert. As for the Palestinians, I really don't know what makes them tick, but unlike the BBC lady, I've been watching them from close up for my entire life, I read lots about them that comes from experts who know more than I, I read translations of things they say - and after all that, I try to limit my statements about them to what I feel competent to say.
It's a free world (part of it, though not the Gazan part), and people can say what they will. Even BBC folks can. But by putting themselves in the public square, they also put themselves up to our scrutiny - and to our derision, if justified.
taken from : Yaacov Lozowick's Ruminations (http://yaacovlozowick.blogspot.com/)
ATTACKS ON JEWS AND JEWISH PROPERTY INCREASING IN S. AMERICA
Jews in S. America Increasingly Uneasy
Government and Media Seen Fostering Anti-Semitism in Venezuela, Elsewhere
"We are blaming the incendiary rhetoric of government officials and media," says Miguel Truzman, at the synagogue vandalized Jan. 30. (By Juan Forero -- The Washington Post) CARACAS, Venezuela, Feb. 7 -- Jewish leaders said it had never before happened in Venezuela: a break-in with anti-Jewish intent at one of the city's most prominent synagogues. A dozen armed men overpowered guards, spray-painted office walls with anti-Semitic insults, desecrated historic Torah scrolls and made off with computers containing personal information on congregants.
President Hugo Chávez condemned the Jan. 30 attack, which has shaken the country's political establishment. But Jewish leaders, supported by Israeli and U.S. officials, have said the populist government's often incendiary rhetoric toward the Jewish state, coupled with rising anti-Semitic diatribes in pro-government media, has helped foster a climate of intolerance that might have prompted assailants to target the Tiferet Israel synagogue.
Anger at Israel's recent military strikes in the Gaza Strip against the Islamist group Hamas have sparked demonstrations here and in two countries closely allied with Venezuela: Bolivia and Argentina.
But Jews in these countries are concerned about the growing anti-Semitic tone of the protesters, who frequently equate Israel with Nazi Germany, a theme increasingly evident on placards that juxtapose the Star of David with the swastika and in some public pronouncements.
In Argentina -- which has the largest Jewish population in Latin America, about 250,000-strong -- Jewish leaders describe a tense climate in which swastikas have been painted on Jewish schools, and graffiti demanding that Jews leave the country have been scrawled on walls. Protests have taken place at the Israeli Embassy, and demonstrators have also gathered in front of the InterContinental Hotel, which is owned by a prominent Argentine Jewish businessman, Eduardo Elsztain.
"It has created a climate of worry, a climate of terror," said Julio Schlosser, secretary general of the Argentine Israelite Mutual Association, whose building was destroyed by a bombing in 1994 that killed 85 people. Prosecutors have accused the Iranian government and the Lebanese Hezbollah movement in the attack.
In Bolivia, where President Evo Morales expelled the Israeli ambassador over the Gaza war, residents have held peaceful protests in several cities. But with the demonstrations have also come troubling signs of anti-Semitism. In the Plaza Israel in the capital of La Paz, for instance, vandals removed a large Star of David from a monument and spray-painted "plaza palestina" on it.
"I think it is the worst that we have seen it in all the years," said Abraham H. Foxman, national director of the Anti-Defamation League in New York, adding that outside of the Middle East, anti-Semitism has been most intense in Latin America. "There is no longer even an effort to differentiate between criticism of Israel and criticism of the Jewish people."
In Venezuela, Jewish leaders say they have felt harassed under the Chávez government and anxious about Venezuela's tightening alliance with Iran, whose president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has called for Israel's destruction.
In December 2007, authorities in Caracas raided the Jewish community's social club, searching for guns, which were not found. Then last month, tear gas was tossed inside Tiferet Israel's compound, and anti-Semitic messages were spray-painted on the outer walls.
A prominent rabbi reported being threatened by men who addressed him as "Jew." He was whisked away to safety by a cabdriver who witnessed the confrontation, said Michael Truzman, a lawyer for the Confederation of Israelite Associations of Venezuela, a group representing the Jewish community. He and other leaders put the blame squarely on the president, who aside from controlling all levers of official power in the country also directs Venezuela's formidable state media apparatus.
"We are blaming the incendiary rhetoric of government officials and media," Truzman said. "The language used by the president and high government officials and different personalities in the media has provoked a campaign that has led to hate against a minority community."
After breaking relations with Israel over Gaza and expelling the ambassador and six other Israeli diplomats, Chávez gave a series of speeches in which he called Israel's government "the assassin arm of the United States" that is carrying out "a genocidal policy." Chávez urged Venezuela's Jewish community to "speak out" against the Gaza strikes. "Don't you the Jews reject the Holocaust?" he said. "Isn't that what we're seeing?"
Even more troubling to Jewish leaders has been commentary in the state press and on such Web sites as Aporrea, which is closely linked to the government. Pro-government pundits have waxed on about Jewish control of U.S. foreign policy and banks and offered conspiracy theories about the Holocaust ("Hitler's associates were Jewish," one commentator said last year on state television).
One commentator on Aporrea called on Venezuelans to boycott companies owned by Jews and "publicly challenge every Jew that you find in the street."
At first, the Venezuelan government suggested that opposition figures might have carried out the attack on the synagogue to cast blame on the government ahead of a referendum next Sunday. In that election, the government is asking residents to vote for a constitutional amendment that would allow Chávez to run for office an indefinite number of times.
"All this is part of a great lie that is trying to be built against Venezuela," Foreign Minister Nicolás Maduro said in the past week. Five days after the attack, Maduro and Communications Minister Jesse Chacón met with Jewish leaders and promised an investigation.
"Why do they have to blame me for everything?" Chávez said Friday. "They attacked the synagogue, and we condemned the act and we're investigating." On Thursday in Caracas, Jews gathered outside the synagogue for a solemn ceremony of speeches and prayer.
Suddenly, as Rabbi Isaac Cohen was to speak, a bus carrying the president's supporters, in their trademark red T-shirts, passed. The message, amplified by loudspeakers, was simple: "The United States and Israel, it is they who are spreading terror in Arab countries and in the world."
The crowd quickly responded by holding up their Venezuelan identity cards and singing the national anthem.
Minutes later, Andres Gordan, a Romanian-born Jew who survived the Holocaust, said he felt "sad, very sad." Venezuela had been a refuge for him, he said, a country tolerant of his religion.
"It's disappointing that this can happen in 2009, when the whole world knows the history," he said. "Here, we found a paradise -- until now."
Partlow reported from Buenos Aires. Special correspondent Andres Schipani in La Paz, Bolivia, contributed to this report.
taken from : B'NAI ELIM (http://bnaielim.blogspot.com/)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
