Tag Archives: American Politics and Life

Secretary Kerry’s Speech and J Street’s Open Letter to the American Jewish Community

06 Thursday Jun 2013

Posted by in American Jewish Life, American Politics and Life, Israel and Palestine, Israel/Zionism, Jewish History

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , ,

Earlier this week, Secretary of State John Kerry gave a powerful and important speech [watch] at the American Jewish Committee conference, calling on American Jews to make their voices heard in support for negotiation efforts and a two-state solution. The speech was not given much attention from Jewish groups, but I, as a co-chair of the J Street Rabbinic Cabinet, believe that it is important to elevate Kerry’s call and to make sure that our community is vocally supporting Kerry’s efforts in the Middle East.

In that vein, J Street has released an open letter to the American Jewish community, which I hope will be circulated and read by many in an effort to galvanize support for a reinvigorated peace effort. The text of the letter can be found here. [ http://jstreet.org/blog/post/an-open-letter-to-the-american-jewish-community_1 ]

The next few weeks provide a critical window of opportunity to do all that can be done to ensure that negotiations move ahead. I urge you to use this open letter as a jumping off point to encourage to your friends and communities to vocally and actively support Secretary Kerry’s efforts.

Why I Recommend Peter Beinart as a Synagogue and Jewish Community Speaker

26 Sunday May 2013

Posted by in American Jewish Life, American Politics and Life, Israel and Palestine, Israel/Zionism, Jewish History, Jewish Identity, Social Justice

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , ,

A column appeared in the May 20, 2013 Jerusalem Post by Rabbi Eric Yoffie entitled “Synagogues, Red Lines and Free Speech” that he wrote in response to the recent decisions of two synagogues in New York and outside Toronto to cancel appearances by Pamela Geller, an inflammatory anti-Islam activist, who Rabbi Yoffie characterized as a “a bigot and purveyor of hate.” http://blogs.jpost.com/content/synagogues-red-lines-and-free-speech

He used the incidents to revisit the theme of free speech in synagogue settings, and drew helpful “red lines” for rabbis and synagogue leadership when considering who to invite to speak.

Rabbi Yoffie writes first of the consequences of shutting down legitimate debate:

“A synagogue that shuts down discussion whenever a wealthy donor is offended may appease the donor but will ultimately drive away its own members and lose its standing in the community…”

He says, however, that some speech is inappropriate in synagogues:

“Synagogues must have red lines. A synagogue bima is not an open forum; it is a platform used by a Jewish religious institution to promote Jewish values and strengthen the Jewish people and the Jewish state. There are people who should never be invited to speak there and things that should not be said there.”

And he drew clear “red lines”:

“Invite those with a firm commitment to Israel as a Jewish and democratic  state; who, when criticisms are offered, will offer them with love and respect; and who are sensitive to Israel’s security needs and oppose terrorism against Israelis and Jews—indeed, who oppose terrorism in all forms and at all times.”  

Rabbi Yoffie noted that Peter Beinart has that “firm commitment” to Israel as a Jewish and democratic state. Truth to tell, Peter is among the most important speakers on Israel and the state of the American Jewish community that I have invited to my congregation in recent years.

Peter is the author of “Crisis of Zionism,” the senior political writer for The Daily Beast, editor of its blog “Open Zion,” and Associate Professor of Journalism and Political Science at the City University of New York.

Yes, his views are controversial. Nevertheless, as a modern orthodox Jew, his writings on Jewish values, the American Jewish community,  Zionism, the State of Israel, and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict comport with surveys that show that most American Jews agree with most of the positions he articulates.

I invited Peter a year ago to debate David Suissa, the President of the Los Angeles Jewish Journal, because despite the wide gap in their positions I wanted my community to hear two intelligent people argue respectfully the great issues facing Israel and the Jewish people, and they did not disappoint. (See http://www.jewishjournal.com/los_angeles/article/peter_beinart_and_david_suissa_debate_zionisms_crisis_20120517)

Given that Rabbi Yoffie mentioned Peter prominently this past week, I was curious to know what impact Peter’s writings have had and whether he had been invited to speak before congregations and communities despite the controversy his writings have stimulated.

I called Peter and learned that, indeed, he has spoken on a number of occasions to Reform, Conservative and Orthodox synagogue communities including my own at Temple Israel of Hollywood in Los Angeles (Reform), as well as at Temple Israel of Boston (Reform), the Washington Hebrew Congregation in D.C. (Reform), Park Avenue Synagogue in Manhattan (Conservative), the Hebrew Institute of Riverdale (Orthodox), Lincoln Square Synagogue in Manhattan (Orthodox), Manhattan Jewish Center (Orthodox), and to other Jewish organizations including the 92nd Street Y, the American Jewish Committee, the Union for Reform Judaism’s Board of Trustees, the Manhattan, Boston and San Francisco JCCs, the Jewish Funders Network, and the Israeli Presidents’ Conference.

I know that there are those who remain uneasy about Peter’s views while many others who are unfamiliar with them. Both groups would find interest not only in his book, but in three articles he penned in The Daily Beast.

The first explains why he does not support BDS against Israel proper; http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/02/12/why-liberal-zionists-won-t-join-bds.html

The second explains why he believes Israel is not an apartheid state: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/03/22/why-israel-is-not-an-apartheid-state.html

And the third is harshly critical of the American political left for ignoring Hamas’ abuse and brutality against Palestinians living in Gaza: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/03/08/the-pro-palestinian-left-s-hamas-blindspot.html

In short, I encourage my colleagues, congregations and Jewish organizations to invite Peter Beinart to their communities to address the great issues confronting American Jews and Israel. His thinking is often different from what we hear from others. His approach, however, is a welcome alternative especially given that so many American Jews feel alienated from Israeli politics and policies, and uncomfortable with positions taken by much of the organized American Jewish community.

“You Shall Not Stand Idly By?” The Syrian Civil War – What to Do?

05 Sunday May 2013

Posted by in American Politics and Life, Ethics

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

,

It should be clear that the last thing the Obama Administration wants is to get caught in another Middle Eastern war, with no “good guys” and no viable exit strategy. What else can explain American passivity in the face of 70,000 Syrian dead and 1 million refugees in two years? What else can explain the President’s hedging on his pledge to act if Syria crossed the “red line” of introducing chemical weapons, now that indeed Syria has crossed that “red line?”

So much for the Biblical command, “Thou shalt not stand idly by while your neighbor bleeds.” (Leviticus 19:16)

Bill Clinton confessed that his greatest regret was not acting to stop the genocide in Rwanda. Will Barack Obama make the same confession about Syria one day?

Yes, Syria is embroiled in a nasty civil war. Yes, the Syrian rebels, increasingly radicalized Islamists, are a mixed bag. Yes, Al Qaida is involved. Who should the US support?

In an interview with Terry Gross on “Fresh Air” (April 30, 2014 – “On the Ground in Syria”) the New York Times correspondent C.J. Chivers, who has covered the wars in Libya and Afghanistan and spent time on the ground with Syrian rebels, understands Obama’s resistance to get involved in Syria.

Chivers says that though the rebels distrust and hate the west, they want the west to get involved because they cannot match the Syrian government’s superior fire power. The west, ironically, is their only hope. They do not want American troops in Syria, but they do want weapons, and, a no-fly zone to protect the people from the air.

“Put yourselves in the shoes of the Syrian people,” Chivers said. Your village has been occupied by the Syrian army and then shelled. Everyone has lost someone. Obama says that the “red line” that will provoke American action against the Syrian government is its introduction of chemical weapons, and the Syrian people think:

“My life isn’t what you care about. It’s the nature of my death. So if I die by high explosives, if I die by a bullet, if I die by disappearance because I’m rolled up at the checkpoint, never seen again, that’s OK. That’s a green line? And a SCUD missile’s OK? An airstrike’s OK? But chemical weapons, that’s not OK. I mean there are more than 70,000 killed in this conflict. And to the Syrians, they say those don’t count? But if someone takes the cork off chemical weapons, that’s different. They feel they’ve been abandoned by the world. “

Chivers is a distinguished journalist and observer of this kind of warfare. He is also a former marine who has seen his share of death. He confesses that he has no good recommendation to offer the President were he asked.

Despite American claims to the contrary, there has been a covert airlift of weapons to the rebel forces, probably orchestrated by the CIA, which creates a long-term problem. These weapons have a long life, and one can never know into whose hands they will end up. Maybe they will be used against the US and Israel.

An American response to chemical weapons is meant to deter other countries in the future from using them, but again, to the Syrian people that “red line” was set pretty far out to the right. The chemical weapons have come so late that the west has already tolerated great cost in human life.

The quandary of the Obama Administration is that people are suffering and there are reasons to arm them and reasons not to arm them.

Chivers notes that the Syrian leaders have played perfectly and with cunning calibration (as opposed to Qaddafi in Libya) the tactics of the war to what they thought the West could tolerate. The Syrian government began the battle with arrests, and with each step of the way introduced more violent actions; first came batons and then bullets; then came the army, mortars, and 107 millimeter rockets; then the artillery and air force, helicopters followed later by jets, and then ballistic missiles and chemical weapons.

It’s been like dropping a frog in water and bringing the water to a boil slowly, pushing the “red” line step-by-step forward until so many people have become desensitized by the violence.

“Thou shalt not stand idly by!”

But, what to do? A no-fly zone? Bomb Syrian government positions? Give more weapons to the rebels?

And then what?

Why The US Should Not Grant Automatic Visas To Israeli Citizens Unless Israel Grants the Same Privilege to All American Citizens

30 Tuesday Apr 2013

Posted by in Uncategorized

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, ,

Senator Barbara Boxer has introduced a bill co-sponsored by 18 Democrats and Republicans that would enable Israel to join a group of 37 other favored nations whose citizens need not carry visas to enter the United States.

Now, any Israeli who wants to travel to the US needs to purchase round-trip plane tickets before being issued a travel visa.

What is the problem? Why do Israelis not have this right already? After all, they are among America’s closest allies in the world?

The answer is – Israelis should, except for one problem. Israel does not grant the same courtesy to all American citizens who enter Israel. Israel, in fact, restricts the travel of Palestinian-American  citizens.

The article below explains more fully the presumed rationale for this restriction as well as the human consequences of Israel’s policy. Though security is always an uppermost Israeli concern, should not all American citizens be treated equally by Israel?

I agree with the view that the United States should not be able to grant Israeli citizens visa-free travel to the US yet exempt Israel from extending that same courtesy to all US citizens. If an individual of any nation seeks entry to Israel and is a specific security risk, Israel (as any other country) should have the right to refuse him/her on concrete security grounds. But to target any individual because he or she is part of an ethnic, racial, religious, or national group is contrary both to American principles and Israeli principles as spelled out in the American Constitution and Israel’s Declaration of Independence.

Senator Boxer’s bill should require equivalent rights to American citizens traveling in Israel, regardless of their ethnic, racial, religious, or national ancestry.

http://www.thenational.ae/news/world/middle-east/us-visa-free-travel-plan-for-israelis-angers-some-americans

When Saying Nothing is Worse Than Saying “No!”

11 Thursday Apr 2013

Posted by in American Jewish Life, American Politics and Life, Ethics, Health and Well-Being, Uncategorized

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, ,

I try and return every phone call and email that comes to me within 24 hours. Sometimes it takes a bit longer if my schedule is tight or I have not checked messages. Sometimes, I confess, I deliberately do not return a call or email when I suspect that the incoming message is so nasty that to engage the sender would be pointless and toxic to my well-being. I receive such objectionable messages from time to time, usually in response to public positions I take in my writings. Other than these, I believe that each phone call, email and letter deserves a personal response as soon as I am able to do so.

It astonishes me that so frequently the individual is surprised that I call back so quickly, or even at all. Though most people I know do as I do, there are lots who clearly do not, and this is why I am writing today.

If you know people who habitually and/or selectively ignore calls and emails, please feel free to send them this blog, as it is meant for them.

I was taught from early childhood that when someone calls, you return the call. When someone gives you a gift, you write a thank you note. When someone does something nice for you, you express gratitude. This is simple derech eretz (lit. “the way of the land,” a Hebrew expression connoting common courtesy and mentchlechkite).

I believe that not to answer someone’s email, phone call or letter is rude, insulting and unacceptable, even when I am certain that something will be asked of me (e.g. to accept an invitation, to do someone a favor, to give to a charity or good cause, or to arrange a time to talk or meet). I also believe that saying “No” respectfully is always better than saying nothing at all.

There is an ethical principle involved. Judaism holds that if, for example, a beggar says hello and we ignore him we bear the guilt of inflicting upon him shame (bushah). It may be that the beggar offered us the only thing he has to give – a greeting. To deliberately ignore him is, in effect, an insult because such silence denies his dignity (kavod) and diminishes him as a fellow human being.

A story is told of the Chassidic sage Rabbi Meshulam Zusha of Hanipol (1718–1800) that one night he was staying at an inn. A wealthy guest mistook him for a beggar and treated him disrespectfully. The guest later learned about Zusha’s true identity and asked Zusha for forgiveness.

Zusha said, “Why do you ask me to forgive you? You haven’t done anything to Zusha. You didn’t insult Zusha. You insulted a poor beggar. I suggest you go out and ask beggars everywhere to forgive you.”

Zusha’s story raises the issue of how we should properly treat people we perceive as being “other” than ourselves (i.e. the stranger, or someone of a different socio-economic station, nationality, ethnicity, race, or religion).

It is possible to learn much about a person’s character based solely on the way he or she treats someone who is different. Is such a person’s behavior respectful and kind, open-hearted and generous, or is he/she dismissive, rude, condescending, and withholding?

The Baal Shem Tov taught his disciples to imagine that inscribed on the forehead of every man, woman and child is the sign of the image in which God creates the human being – B’tzelem Elohim (lit. “In the Divine image”).

In practical terms, seeing the divine image in “others” means at the very least acknowledging their presence, and returning phone calls and emails promptly regardless of what we imagine to be the reason for the call. Again, my only exception is when I know that the caller will be abusive and disrespectful.

Not responding is common particularly in Washington, D.C. and Hollywood, places where power and politics define many relationships, and what you do is more important than who you are. It seems to me that this bad habit has become increasingly more common over the years.

Going forward, those of us who are guilty of this kind of behavior might change it, and that all of us should be teaching our children, grandchildren, and students by example that when we receive a communication from another person, the decent thing to do is answer it, even if our answer is respectfully “No!”

The Organized American Jewish Community’s Response to President Obama’s Jerusalem Speech

31 Sunday Mar 2013

Posted by in American Jewish Life, American Politics and Life, Israel and Palestine, Israel/Zionism, Jewish History, Social Justice

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , ,

President Obama’s Jerusalem speech has been praised by most American Jewish Organizations for his eloquent support of Israel, its security, his respect for the historic Jewish attachment to the land of Israel, his tough stand against the Iranian nuclear threat, and his desire to help the parties resolve the Arab-Israeli conflict.

I should be happy with this praise, but I am instead worried, not for what most of these organizations said in their press releases following Obama’s Middle East visit, but by what they did not say.

In reading the statements of the American Jewish Committee (AJC), the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism (RAC), the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), the Zionist Organization of America (ZOA), and J Street, in all but the RAC and J Street statements something important was missing.

The AJC quoted Obama as “reaffirming the US supported goal of a negotiated two state-solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict” and calling “on the Palestinians to return to direct talks with Israel…” noting that the President praised “Abbas as a partner for peace.”

The ADL said that “The President conveyed a deep understanding of important challenges facing Israel, including the peace process…” and “that the peace process can only be achieved through negotiations without preconditions…”

AIPAC noted that both Obama and Netanyahu “share the view that direct talks should resume between the Israelis and Palestinians without preconditions, with the objective of two states for two peoples.”

The ZOA made no mention of a two-state solution because it does not support a two-state solution.

Here are the relevant remarks in the RAC and J Street statements that are missing from all the others:

The RAC, quoting Obama, repeated: “Israelis must recognize that continued settlement activity is counterproductive to the cause of peace and that an independent Palestine must be viable, with real borders that have to be drawn. I’ve suggested principles on territory and security that I believe can be the basis for these talks.”

J Street said: “[Obama] also laid out the moral case for peace with the Palestinians, based on full recognition of their national right to self-determination and their right to build their lives free of the daily humiliations of military occupation. The President also made it clear that peace is possible and that Israel does have partners in …Abbas and…Fayyad…who are committed to negotiations and to a peaceful solution.”

It seems to me that in their press statements the organized American Jewish community ignored most of the 20 minutes of the President’s 49 minute address that spoke directly and compassionately to the Israeli people about the plight of the Palestinians under occupation and their legitimate rights to a national home of their own side by side with Israel.

Here are a few of the most important lines of Obama’s speech that were not eluded to except by the RAC and J Street:

“[T]he Palestinian people’s right to self-determination and justice must also be recognized. Put yourself in their shoes – look at the world through their eyes.

Neither occupation nor expulsion is the answer. Just as Israelis built a state in their homeland, Palestinians have a right to be a free people in their own land.

Peace is possible. It is possible. I’m not saying it’s guaranteed. I can’t even say that it is more likely than not, but it is possible.

Let me say this as a politician, I can promise you this: political leaders will never take risks if the people do not push them to take some risks. You must create the change that you want to see. Ordinary people can accomplish extraordinary things.

Today, as we face the twilight of Israel’s founding generation, you – the young people of Israel – must now claim its future. It falls to you to write the next chapter in the great story of this great nation.

What concerns me is the potentially obstructionist role that some in the organized American Jewish community might take (as has happened in the past) when President Obama and Secretary Kerry put concrete proposals on the table about borders, settlements, security, Jerusalem, and refugees. I hope that what is missing in their press statements are merely oversights. I hope as well that the organized American Jewish community will support President Obama fully in his efforts without second guessing him and without partisan rancor in order to help the Israelis and Palestinians find an end of conflict two-state solution without getting in his way.

If this occurs in this next year, come Pesach 2014 we will truly be able to say – Dayeinu!

“I’m not interested in nuance!” So said a Member of the House of Representatives regarding the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

21 Thursday Mar 2013

Posted by in American Jewish Life, American Politics and Life, Israel and Palestine, Israel/Zionism, Jewish History, Uncategorized

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , ,

This week I joined with 250 leaders of J Street in Washington, D.C. for a leadership summit. J Street is the largest pro-Israel Political Action Committee in the nation’s capital that gave 50% of all pro-Israel contributions to Senate and Congressional candidates in the 2012 election. (See www.jstreet.org.)

On Tuesday of this week J Street activists held 101 meetings with members of the Senate and House of Representatives. Each delegation made three points:

[1] We asked support from the House/Senate member for President Obama’s efforts to help the Israelis and Palestinians achieve a two-state solution through negotiation;

[2] Despite aggressive efforts by the Republican party to portray President Obama during the campaign as anti-Israel, 70% of the American Jewish community voted for him just as American Jews have voted for Democratic presidential candidates since World War II, that 80% of the American Jewish community supports a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and 76% support the President bringing a plan on which the parties may negotiate. These statistics suggest that it is politically popular to support American efforts to assist the parties in negotiating a two-state solution;

[3] We urged House members to sign Rep. Barbara Lee’s bill (HR 783) that would make it Congressionally-recognized US policy to use all diplomatic tools, including targeted sanctions and the appointment of a high-level envoy, to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.

I personally visited, along with other J Street activists, six House members. All except one were gracious, open hearted and curious about J Street’s understanding of the nuances of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and what it would take to achieve a peace agreement.

One member we visited, however, was impatient and hostile to our group from the very beginning even before we sat down, despite the fact that several of us, including me, are his constituents. He interrupted us constantly leading me, as the leader of that delegation of eight, to say to him, “Congressman, you have limited time as do we – I ask you to be quiet and give us a chance to explain why we are here.” He demurred and we were then able to articulate our three talking points.

This meeting was disturbing not because of his lack of civility, though his behavior was rude. Rather, we were shocked by what he said to us.

It is important to acknowledge that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is considered to be among the most complicated, intractable, potentially explosive and destructive, and difficult international problems the United States faces in the world. In order to bring about a two-state resolution, both sides will require extraordinary efforts to listen to each other, grasp the other’s narrative, and appreciate and respect the legitimate fear, distrust and hatred that the other holds (Israeli to Palestinian and Palestinian to Israeli). The nuances of this conflict must be studied and understood by everyone in order to reach a successful resolution of the conflict.

This House member, who sits on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, and should know better, said, “I’m not interested in nuance. Tell me only the facts I need to know so I can vote. I care what 98% of the population wants and they could care less about nuance. Nuance is a waste of time.”

I was shocked because his attitude is so clearly the opposite of what is needed at this critical time in Israel’s history, and especially from a House member who sits on the very committee that is responsible for foreign relations.

Thankfully, the other five representatives we visited, as well as dozens of other House members and Senators, were very different indeed. They appreciated complexity and wanted very much to do the right thing on behalf of the United States, Israel and the Palestinians.

As we parted each representative we presented an article published in the NY Times by Allen S. Weiner (February 23, 2013) entitled “Why the Middle East Needs America.” http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/01/opinion/global/why-the-middle-east-needs-america.html?_r=0

Professor Weiner is the Director of the Stanford Program in International and Comparative Law and co-director of the Stanford Center on International conflict and Negotiation. He is a pre-eminent American expert in conflict resolution. His article is an important read for what will be needed to reach a successful two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

“If you can’t win by playing fair, cheat!”

27 Sunday Jan 2013

Posted by in Uncategorized

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , ,

So writes Charles Blow of the Republican Party on the Op-Ed pages of the New York Times (January 25, 2013).

In key toss-up states controlled by Republican legislatures in the most recent presidential contest, the Republican Party had attempted to skew the vote towards Governor Romney by rigging the system so as to reduce the number of Democrats who would be able to vote. The GOP used a number of strategies including reducing the number of voting places and voting machines in Democratic districts, eliminating the weekend for voting before the election, and shortening the number of hours the polling places would be open that would adversely affect areas populated by minorities, seniors and the poor who tend to vote Democratic. The Republicans had also attempted to require photo identification in order to vote which puts the poor and elderly at a disadvantage, most of whom, of course, tend to vote for Democrats.

Despite this blatant assault on the most basic of democratic freedoms (i.e. the right to vote in free elections), voters in those targeted districts defiantly either voted early by mail or stood for hours in rain and cold to vote. Such long lines, of course, did not exist in districts where Republicans were in the majority.

After trying to unsuccessfully suppress the Democratic vote in 2012, the Republicans have devised a new strategy to win future presidential elections. Though both the Democratic and Republican parties have gerrymandered their state districts to give their respective party advantages, the 2010 gerrymander effort by Republicans has effectively enabled them to retain their majority in the House of Representatives despite the fact that Democrats nationally won more than one million more votes than their Republican colleagues.

Now the Republicans (as described by Charles Blow – click on link below) are trying something new, to rig the election by changing the way states allocate electoral votes in presidential elections.

Currently, states are winner-take-all for the Electoral College, meaning that the candidate who wins a state’s popular vote receives all that state’s electoral votes. The Republicans want to change the system and award electoral votes proportionally by congressional district regardless of who wins the most votes state-wide. On its face, this does not seem unreasonable until one looks at the numbers and connects the dots. This system would favor less populated rural areas that vote Republican over more populated urban areas that vote Democratic by giving them equal weight. Had this system been in effect in 2012, Governor Mitt Romney would have won the presidency despite losing by millions of votes nationally to President Barack Obama.

The only comfort I take from these underhanded undemocratic shenanigans is that they are a reflection of desperation within the GOP that is struggling to stay competitive in a country in which demographics have changed against Republicans and that Republican ideas and approaches to government are no longer held in the majority.

If the Republicans are defeated in these vote-rigging efforts I suspect that the GOP as currently constituted will die from its own self-inflicted wounds. In its place I would hope that there would emerge a new kind of Republican Party that is more moderate, more pragmatic, more inclusive, more compromising, and more democratic.

The United States works best with a viable two-party system that can meet often on common ground and arrive at a workable national consensus on policy while checking the excesses of the other. We certainly do not need one party like the current Republican Party that thinks nothing of cheating the public and undermining our democratic system.

See Charles Blow’s column:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/26/opinion/blow-rig-the-vote.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=edit_th_20130126

“And Hope and History Rhyme” – Seemus Heaney

22 Tuesday Jan 2013

Posted by in Uncategorized

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

,

As I watched today and saw one million citizens standing on the Washington Mall waving small American flags in a flutter of red, white and blue as the first African American President was inaugurated for the second time, I felt such deep pride in being an American.

On NPR’s “Talk of the Nation” today, I heard Nikkey Finney, Professor of English Literature at the University of Kentucky, read part of a poem called “The Cure of Troy” by Seemus Heaney (b. 1939), the 1995 Nobel Prize winner in Literature, and thought – Yes!  That is what this moment in time is all about and that is what we are here to feel, think and believe.

The Cure of Troy

…History says, Don’t hope
on this side of the grave.
But then, once in a lifetime
the longed for tidal wave
of justice can rise up,
and hope and history rhyme.

So hope for a great sea-change
on the far side of revenge.
Believe that a further shore
is reachable from here.
Believe in miracles
and cures and healing wells…