οἶδα οὐδὲν εἰδώς

Well, as a French student studying in Canada, now more than ever, and through the last two years, I have been enriching, and building up my personality and understanding of the world like never before.

This blog arrived at the good moment to answer some existentialist questions I would be too lazy to work on otherwise.

It’s all about my place in the world. I am Jewish, and I believe in a land for the Jewish people, as history proved its complete integration would “never” happen. But, more than being Jewish, I am foremost a global citizen. Therefore, I believe in a place in the world, BUT among other places. I still have this idealist perspective inherent to the young people, before they realize life is not that easy. But I will strive to keep it as long as possible, since only idealistic people had the guts to fight for relevant causes.

More than curiosity, I believe it is a duty to engage in such reflections if one day I plan to settle in Israel. I should then continue the Yes Man experience whenever I am offered to complete my understanding (with books, conversations etc.).

I wrote a brief passage on a Political Science Understanding, I think it was also an exercise to find my place in this world, but for different matters: consuming while being respectful of others.

Moreover, meditation is a way to approach these burning questions with zeal. The Buddhist understood this “holistic understanding of the world”. Nobody has the perfect truth and it is interesting to try to seek the big picture by matching all these scattered edges, while at the same time being conscientious of the limits of such a quest. As Socrates stated it: “I know that I do not know” ("οἶδα οὐδὲν εἰδώς" in greek)......Oh no...I know one thing: my McGill ID is 260321391!!


Socrates was the first Buddhist?

My apologies, Khaled is not a fanatic!

First, I must apologize. When I met Rennie and Nicole one week ago, I told them I would not dialogue with Khaled since “he is a fanatic”. My initial judgment was a stupid and biased assumption based on the fact that he came and see me in class to ask me “what is the logic behind Israel attacks of Humanitarian aids?”. Although his first exchange with me seemed a little aggressive, I now believe Khaled is a “balanced thinker”.

We spent one hour on Friday dialoguing with Khaled, Anthon and Christeen, and two hours on Saturday. Khaled told me how his grandparents were invited by the Israeli Defense Force to evacuate their villages in 1948. On the Jewish side, we like to tell that the surrounding Arab countries asked the Palestinian to evacuate, in order to attack the Israeli army. Both Khaled’s and Christeen’s testimony seem to prove that the 1948 War of Indepence story is more complexed than sticking on a Black or White perspective: we cannot blame only the Israeli army or the surrounding Arab countries. And this story is one of the many episodes of the conflict “simplified” by the two camps, sticking on their edge.

While dialoguing, we followed the advice given on the reading “Tips for Convening a Dialogue” (such as the setting of the dialogue etc.). We first introduced our understanding of dialogue, in order to avoid letting the dialogue becoming a debate. After setting the layer, we spoke about the conflict itself.

“We focus on inquiring into the unknown.” We tried to follow this tip: we raised many interesting questions during the dialogue. How supportive is the Israeli citizen regarding the current government politics? How supportive are the Palestinians of the Hamas fight against Israel? We sought these polls on the internet, and derived interesting conclusions: over 50% of the Israelis and Palestinians are against the politics of their leaders.

“We question our assumptions”: I believe we tried to tackle our assumptions. For him, Israel is an occupying country, and I tried to explain him the Jewish deep connection to the land Amos Oz speaks about in Help us to divorce. Moreover, I tried to explain him that he should not view the conflict as a football match where deaths should be counted. Likewise, he explained me why the Hamas was elected (Fatah was corrupted), and how the Palestinian feel about Zionism, and this broadened the dialogue. What I would take as granted was greatly challenged by his explanations.

As a result, we derived many connections between our ideas, and I believe we got closer to a “more holistic view of reality”. We all agreed that Hamas is worsening things, and that peace is not negotiable with this Islamite party. Moreover, we agreed that the Israeli blockade is a political choice that will not lead to peace. Israel should stop its “absolute” choice of harming Hamas by harming the Palestinians, and making believe to the world that it is the only answer to the woes they are facing. The government is facing further international pressure, and two days ago, it announced it would weaken its blockade! I like to think this blog had its influence over this decision, and that we participated to this “international pressure”. We did not come with a miraculous answer to this never ending conflict, but at least now we “understand more” and “believe less”.




Do we look more charismatic than Clinton, Rabin and Arafat?



I hope so!

Israel-Palestine: Me and my puzzle

In fact, at first, I did not plan to base my blog on the conflict before Christeen presented herself in class. As a meaningful picture, she chose an Israeli kid and a Palestinian kid walking together. Therefore, I went and ask her if she wanted to do something about the conflict. I then realised it could become a great opportunity to understand something that has been troubling me for years: the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and how it became such a mess. Why people today do not want to "understand" and prefer "believe"? - among all the different questions raised by the conflict.

We did not know how to approach this, so we adopted a random process instead of deciding on a final aim; step by step we would blindly advance. Some steps would perhaps be useless, but would help us to spot other relevant topics. I believe sharing the stories of our families on the land is a first interesting step. Getting to understand the "influential ideas" such as Zionism is another one. Trying to understand how the conflict is analyzed (and made understood!) through the media perspective is a third one.

In fact, I realised how arbitrary and difficult is the job of the Historian. As students, we are provided with history lessons we take as granted (the selection was already made for us). What was actually really interesting in this process is that I would become the Historian. I would go through the process of trying to make sense out of "nothing and everything". It is a very delicate mission to try to honestly understand, bring sense, and explain to others.

At the end of the day, what we wanted is to obtain "a center" instead of "two edges" to our dialogue. This is, we want to complete each other's puzzle; while the pieces of the puzzle would be scattered pieces of truth. This week end dialogue with Khaled will be a good occasion to assess how "complete" is my puzzle.

The "research" is getting to a deadline. The main lesson I will keep from all this is that if somebody states he objectively understand the conflict, he is certainly mistaken! Many times, I would discover new "facts" that would make me feel really ignorant. I believe there is no end to such a quest. Hence I completed my puzzle, but I certainly have a slight understanding of what is really going on. The conflict mixture is one very special of intertwined stories, destinies, ideas, religions, philosophies... The truth is not reachable; thus, it is dangerous to blindly follow one government politics. As I explain to Jerome Bourdon in our correspondence, I believe it is the duty of every single person who believes in the land of Israel to assist the government in its politics instead of blindly and cowardly relying on it. The final lesson is that when truth is not reachable, our humanity sense should prevail. Hence, I do not know what will happen if Gaza blocus is weakened, but this though situation the Israeli government is facing should be thought with a touch of intellectual modesty, and a touch of human sensibility!

Last but not least, why does it matter to me? Well, I am Jewish, and I truly believe in the land of Israel as being a Jewish land, but I want it to be an integrated and peaceful part of the world. I might sound too idealistic, but the actual situation does not give me satisfaction in the Zionist project. As an eventual future citizen of the state of Israel, I believe it is my duty to tackle the government politics and bring my slight influence to this never-ending debate...

Israel-Palestine: Correspondance with a journalist-teacher

I read this article on Le Monde (French newspaper) nammed: "Does the Israeli-Palestinian conflict make people become blind?"

Link of the article: http://www.lemonde.fr/idees/article/2010/04/28/le-conflit-israelo-palestinien-rend-il-aveugle-par-jerome-bourdon_1343655_3232.html#ens_id=1365419

I thought this article was really interesting. Jerome Bourdon, teacher at Tel Aviv university, explains how the "hyper-critique" of Israel, and its "hyper-justification" are fruitless. I believe he is a partisan of "one center instead of two edges". Moreover, M. Bourdon is specialized on the influence of the media over the conflict.


A film on the media influence

I googled his email, wrote him, and he replied. Fortunately, we will speak over Skype this weekend.

Here is the email exchange (in French!) between him and me. I believe the third email is the most interesting one, and I hope he will tell me more about it through Skype.

First email:
Monsieur Bourdon,

J'ai lu attentivement votre papier "Le conflit israélo-palestinien rend-il aveugle ?" qui a été publie sur le site du Monde. J'etudie a McGill, a Montreal et en ce moment je travaille sur un projet ambitieux pour un de mes cours qui consiste a identifier "l'ensemble" des causes du conflit Israelo-Palestinien. Je travaille en collaboration avec une Palestinienne qui elle aussi etudie a McGill. Nous voulons "comprendre" plutôt que de "croire" comme vous le dites si bien dans votre papier. Et, comme l'explique Amos Oz, une comprehension de l'attachement des Juifs, comme celui des Palestiniens a la terre d'Israel est un premice a toute autre reflexion.

Notre recherche s'est peu a peu orientee vers l'influence des medias et de l'opinion populaire sur le conflit. Au sujet de la flottille de Gaza, nous avons compare des articles du New York Times, Haaretz, du Monde, et avons cherche a reperer les grossieretes employees par les journalistes afin de "manipuler les lecteurs". Cependant, il ne nous a pas semble evident qu'il y ait une veritable tournure journalistique manipulatrice dans ces articles isoles. Je vous communique le lien des articles concernes:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/01/world/middleeast/01flotilla.html
http://www.lemonde.fr/proche-orient/article/2010/05/31/assaut-israelien-contre-la-flottille-en-route-vers-gaza_1365247_3218.html
http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/opinion/gaza-flotilla-drives-israel-into-a-sea-of-stupidity-1.292959
http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/analysis-israel-needs-national-inquiry-into-deadly-gaza-flotilla-clashes-1.293347

J'ai lu le papier d'Eric Marty: "Il n'est pas vrai que la barrière, ou le mur, de séparation relève d'une politique de discrimination : les faits parlent d'eux-mêmes ; depuis sa construction, les attentats criminels commis par des kamikazes fanatisés sont désormais impossibles ; et c'est dans cette heureuse impossibilité que le "mur" trouve son unique fondement."
Je trouve cela etonnant que des journalistes, universitaires ou autres intellectuels puissent prendre des positions aussi radicales dans leurs publications et je regrette le peu d'imagination dont font part ces differents acteurs. Les nombreux articles que j'ai pu lire me font penser a un match de football. Les journalistes decrivent le conflit comme etant "front contre front", et ne parviennent pas a communiquer les reels enjeux du conflit.

Je me tourne vers vous car je trouve que votre papier explique tres bien le peu de recul des visions hypercritiques et hyper-justificatrices. Afin de nous guider dans nos recherches, pourriez-vous nous apporter des elements de reponse a l'importance des media dans le conflit? Pensez vous que la paix passera par les media?

En vous remerciant,
Jonathan Harris


His answer (second email):
Cher Monsieur,

Merci de votre intérêt - et d'avoir si bien compris, ce la n'a pas été le cas de tous mes lecteurs (j'ai reçu des critiques de tout côté). Si vous le voulez nous pouvons converser au téléphone, cela sera plus simple, sur Skype peut-être? Je jetera un coup d'oeil à vos articles d'ici là.
Je me permets aussi de vous renvoyer à mon livre cité en bas de l'article, qu'on trouve sans difficulté sur Amazon ou le site de l'éditeur ou qui sait à la bibliothèque de votre université.
Et, pour répondre à votre question finale, les médias ne peuvent pas faire progresser la paix en Israël, à mon avis, mais ponctuellement, apaiser les tensions, ici ou ailleurs, notamment là où coexistent juifs et arabes (en beaucoup de lieux).

Bien cordialement,
Jérôme Bourdon


My answer (third email):
Cher Monsieur Bourdon,

Merci pour votre reponse. Cela me semble egalement une bonne idée de converser par Skype dont je vous donne mon compte : jonny667872, je vous remercie de votre proposition. Je voulais egalement avoir des commentaires sur une reflexion que j'ai mene au sujet de ce que vous appelez l'hyperjustification et l'hyper-critique d'Israel.

Il y a d'apres moi un ennemi commun qui se cache derriere l'hyperjustification comme l'hyper-critique d'Israel : le peril que cela represente pour l'avenir de l'Etat Juif.

Dans le cas de l'hyper justification je constate que beaucoup de Juifs vivant en Israel ou ailleurs (comme c'est mon cas) veulent voir en Israel un Etat qui incarne des valeurs absolument justes. Ils accordent une confiance aveugle au gouvernement Israelien et aux initiatives prises par Tsahal par le raisonement reducteur qu'il s'agit d'une politique quasi-divine : les instances dirigeantes connaissent les menaces qui pesent sur le pays, et font ce qu'ils doivent légitimement faire pour assurer sa survie. Malheureusement, les rois d'Israel tels que decrits dans l'Ancien Testament, n'ont rien a voir avec un Netanyahu ou un Sharon, et "nous" devons assumer la part de subjectivite de chaque decision prise, aussi terrifiant et febrile cela puisse t-il paraitre. Ouvrir les yeux et tenter d'apporter un avis critique sur les politiques d'Israel est, je crois, le devoir de chaque Juif qui croit en Israel. Pour ma part, j'ai decide de partir en guerre contre le fanatisme tel que decrit par Amos Oz dans "Aidez-nous a divorcer". L'hyperjustificateur d'Israel a beau avoir bon cœur, il en reste neanmoins un fanatique ! Amos Oz explique qu'avec un peu d'imagination les tensions seront apaisées, et je pense qu'en effet c'est un exercice auquel devraient se preter vos detracteurs. Sans imagination, on laisse carte blanche au gouvernement qui, tel le patriarche, a la solution miracle…

Je n'ai pas non plus de solution toute trouvee au conflit, et il m'est bien facile de vous ecrire ca de mon ordinateur a Montreal. Cependant, meme sans n'avoir jamais travaille pour un Etat-major, je ne pense pas que la "politique d'oppression" menee contre les Palestiniens soient le choix le plus judicieux a faire pour assurer l'avenir du pays.

En vous remerciant,
Jonathan Harris

His answer (fourth email):
Hello Jonathan,

Just added you in my Skype contacts... Ooops, et sortie d'une longue série de emails en anglais. Vous me trouverez facillement sur Skype, il y a d'autres Jerome Bourdon mais je suis le seul en Israël.
Bien cordialement

Jérôme Bourdon



So...to be continued

Israel-Palestine: Criticism of a Fanatic (and how to get hated by my family)

My unt living in Israel sends me friendly emails:
"prends 19 minutes de ton precieux temps.

C'est tres instructif et factuel.
Et si tu as des propositions a faire sur la facon de proteger ton , notre pays, je t'en prie, viens.
Mais cesse d'ecouter les donneurs de lecons. les conseilleurs ne sont pas les payeurs.
Et reflechis sur le seul vrai probleme : la Turquie. en attendant qu'il; ne soit trop tard pour l'Europe.

Nous t'attendons,
arielle"


Here is the link of the video she wanted to show me (interesting to watch it before reading the following):
http://www.akadem.org/sommaire/themes/politique/1/2/module_7832.php

Charles Meyer in the video tries to explain his understanding of the situation in the Palestinian territories and why Israel feels sincerely sorry but not guilty.

I tried to explain why Charles Meyer is a fanatic, and why he is mistaken, in an email a little bit too harsh I yet did not send to my ant....

My answer (to be sent):
Arielle,

J'ai bien pris 19 minutes de mon precieux temps afin de regarder la video dont tu m'avais envoyee le lien.

Te rends-tu compte que Charles Meyer, Vice-président de France-Israël, pointe du doigt tout au long de sa prestation, un ennemi imaginaire dont il ne nommera jamais le nom. Il s'agit de laisser croupir "leurs" populations (4m30), "On" fait le choix de la misere (9m55). Quand il nomme les pays arabes directement, on voit mal ce qu'il y a de factuel dans ses accusations!!


L'intervenant est "plus pan-arabique que Nasser". Comme le dit Amos Oz dans "Aidez nous a divorcer", ne serait-il pas plus malin de finalement envisager que Palestiniens ne rime pas tant avec arabes ? Si tel est le cas, est-ce que le gouvernement Israelien cherche-t-il vraiment a créer un Etat Palestinien pour rendre la dignite a ces "pauvres" etres ? Est-ce que l'implantation de nouvelles colonies est une mesure raisonable, et qui va dans le sens de la reconnaissance du droit a l'existence d'un Etat Palestinien ?

Charles Meyer propose justement d'etudier les reelles sources du probleme avant d'envisager une solution, mais les sources du probleme il ne nous les enonce pas clairement ! Qui est donc responsable du sort reserve au Palestiniens dont il s'attriste tant ? Qu'est ce qu'Israel peut faire pour ces pauvres Palestiniens autrement que de venger ses morts sur des milliers de civils ?

Les 600,000 Juifs qui ont fuis les pays arabes ont trouve refuge en Israel, les milliers de Palestiniens qui sont devenus refugies n'ont pas eux trouve de refuge. C'est bien malheureux mais c'est comme ca. Ils ont perdu au jeu des chaises musicales qui a suivi l'eclatement de l'empire Ottoman et l'implantation d'Israel en Palestine. Pretendre que l'idee meme de Palestine est une absurdite est un manque aberrant de comprehension de l'histoire ! Son "scoop biologique" est absurde, le probleme est juste reporte de generation en generation, et solution il y aura quand il y aura enfin un veritable Etat Palestinien.

Moi je ne pretends pas avoir la solution miracle que tu attends, mais une chose est sure, vos dirigeants politiques non plus ! A l'heure ou la terre entiere critique le blocus de Gaza (y compris une forte opposition en Israel comme on a pu le lire sur Haaretz), a l'heure ou Israel perd de precieux allies, on peut eventuellement assouplir ses positions et se permettre de critiquer et modifier une politique infructueuse, comme Sharon semblait le faire en se retirant de Gaza. L'autre solution est de suivre aveuglement des fanatiques comme Charles Meyer, mais a en observer la situation actuelle, je ne miserai pas beaucoup sur ses conseils !

Bises,
Jonathan

I felt it really difficult to explain my disaproval to my ant, and why I believe Charles Meyer is a mistaken fanatic. I believe I did not reach my expectations, and my email is a draft I need to work on before I could send it. Why is it difficult? The fanatic is friendly, he is subtile and knows how to play with words. I bolded the main points of my argumentation.

Understanding the Buddhist philosophy (session 3)

Yesterday, I went to a discussion at the Buddhist center on the theme of faith. I was first disappointed by the subject that sounded dogmatic to me. The woman was telling us how faith brings meaning to life, and how without faith people fall into depression, and cannot properly enjoy life.

I heard these ideas before, but at the synagogue! The rabbi would tell the prayers how they need to have faith in god, and blindly respect what he tells us to do. However, I talked with the lady after the conference, and her definition of faith is much broader. I understood that her definition of faith is everything that brings meaning to life, a less rigid interpretation than the religious idea of faith.

I opposed her idea of faith with Baudelaire’s idea of spleen, and she liked the idea.


Baudelaire (1821-1867)


Baudelaire’s spleen is a redundant theme in his poems:

Spleen (extract)

“When the low, heavy sky weighs like a lid
On the groaning spirit, victim of long ennui,
And from the all-encircling horizon
Spreads over us a day gloomier than the night;

When the earth is changed into a humid dungeon,
In which Hope like a bat
Goes beating the walls with her timid wings
And knocking her head against the rotten ceiling;”

—Translated by William Aggeler, The Flowers of Evil (Fresno, CA: Academy Library Guild, 1954)

To the feeling of spleen could be opposed the feeling triggered by “faith”:

Elevation (extract)

“My soul, you move with ease,
And like a strong swimmer in rapture in the wave
You wing your way blithely through boundless space
With virile joy unspeakable.

Fly far, far away from this baneful miasma
And purify yourself in the celestial air,
Drink the ethereal fire of those limpid regions
As you would the purest of heavenly nectars.”

—Translated by William Aggeler, The Flowers of Evil (Fresno, CA: Academy Library Guild, 1954)

As I understand it, faith encompasses the energy devoted by the artist to write his music, as well as the energy devoted by the journalist to diffuse the information among his fellow citizen. The artist, likewise the journalist trust what they are doing, and believe they are doing what is good for themselves and for the community. In a sense, they have faith in their power to change society; they believe they have some power over this process, and derive their energy from it.

Although, the Buddhist woman told me that there exist many three different forms of faith which fall into a hierarchy. Nevertheless, some are less valuable than others since they could be contingent to a situation. From her point of view, the artist might lose his ability to write music the following day, and what really matters is the timelessness of the object of faith. Her faith derives from Buddha’s understanding of the world, which is not subject to disappear with time. Moreover, this type of faith allows her to gather “seeds of virtue” (i.e. to become more and more virtuous over time; thus, making the world a better place).

I would object to this consideration, for me the energy derived from creativity could be as virtuous and useful for humanity than a more spiritual understanding of the world. Moreover, the ability of creativity is intangible. Even though a nice car could break the following day, Beethoven would never lose his ability to write symphonies (although Beethoven’s energy, like many other artists, is not as “light” as Baudelaire describes it in Elevation).

What I especially appreciated from this woman, and the Buddhist philosophy, is their open-mindedness. They do not try to make you understand they understood life more than you. They are really sweet in the approach of explaining what they believe is the path to happiness. Moreover, they are perfectly tolerant with people who decide to follow Jesus Christ, for instance (the woman believe we could also increase our spirituality through the other religions). While talking to me, she told me that she would speak to me like she would speak to her mother since I could have been her mother in a precedent life. Although I think it might be a literal explanation which leaves me skeptical, this fraternal philosophy reminds me of the idea of the “kid on the shoulders”. Would you treat your mother like this? is a useful question to assess the virtuosity of our social actions. Finally, she invited me to read “Understanding the mind”, a book which would allow me to better understand what the Buddhist mean when they state that the spirit is located at the center of the heart.

Meditation (session 2) - Where is my mind?

Yesterday I went meditating for the second time. This time, the woman leading the session told us to spot our spirit, located in the middle of our breast. I was first really happy to learn the Buddhists had managed to discover what scientists and philosophers have been looking for many centuries. Then, being less cynical, I tried to take the exercise as a metaphor rather than literally, and the experience made me feel much better after the session.

Maybe meditation is just a means to increase our spirituality and does not give an easy answer to every existential question, but, one could feel the physical, concrete benefits induced by seeking what “they” call the spirit.

If I had to put a name on the experience, I would say that I felt much more in phase, and comfortable with my body the following afternoon. I often have a slight and subtitle headache accompanying me the whole day, but yesterday I did not feel this.

Thinking about it afterwards, I realize what they mean by the “pure spirit”. In fact, we all experience stress, anxiety, and the whole purpose of the exercise is to “unlever” all these distortions to feel the basis of who we are. The eyes closed, listening to the relaxed voice of the woman, I was able to understand the idea behind all this. She could had state it as: “try to eliminate whatever hinders your way through life”.