Mitzpe Ramon was much emptier of Israeli tourists this time. We had a very hot week and a lot of people were probably afraid it would be too hot down there. They don’t realize that Mitzpe Ramon is higher up than Jerusalem and is therefore much cooler than Beer Sheva or Eilat. Anyway, the heat wave ended during the weekend. Yesterday evening was cool and today was quite pleasant too. We did see quite a few foreign tourists, which was nice.
We also got to see quite a lot of wild deer this time, down in the crater. We usually see wild ibex, which, being mountain animals, come right up to the town.
(These are ibex, not deer)
Last night, a twelve-year-old boy from the town got lost in the crater, but he was found today. He was probably lucky it wasn’t as hot last night and today.
Barbara Tuchman as cooked in the desert (before it cooled down).
This time I didn’t take any newspapers at all to Mitzpe Ramon. Not even old ones. Bish took the Haaretz weekend magazine but I didn’t even open it.
What I did take was Barbara Tuchman’s “The March of Folly”, quoted from so often by Bish that I never bothered to read it myself. Unfortunately, I’m reading it in Hebrew so I can’t bring any illuminating quotes (Do I hear sighs of relief? Hey, this isn’t a home assignment, you know! All six* of you (I told you my readership was growing) can go read someone else, right now. Don’t you worry about me, I’m narcissistic enough to enjoy reading my blog over and over to myself).
For those of you who haven’t read this (not even the back cover?), Ms. Tuchman describes a recurring historical phenomenon of governments implementing policies detrimental to their own interests. One of the reasons she gives for this is plain folly or blind stubbornness. She explains this in a very readable way, with lots of interesting historical examples. I’ve only read a chapter and a half so far so I can’t talk about the whole book. (Why is it Bish read over a hundred pages of his book while we were in Mitzpe and I only read 50 something? I can’t even console myself that I read slower but better. Bish can usually quote books he’s read recently by heart. I can hardly remember what I just read before I went to the bathroom. This is probably why I need Fred Lapides to help me with my reading. Thank you Fred, I am forever grateful).
___________________________________________
*This could be seen as unabashed plagiarism. Dan Ben Amotz, famous Israeli writer, celebrity, columnist and pedophile, regularly referred to his “six readers” in his weekly column in the long gone “Hadashot” newspaper (this was Haaretz’ attempt at publishing a tabloid. But however hard they tried it just wasn’t a tabloid and therefore only Bish and I read it. Oh, and Dan Ben Amotz’ four other readers, of course).
Thoughts that arose while reading the first chapter (of “The March of Folly, not “Hadashot”):
Is the Palestinian people’s behavior during the last sixty-odd years an example of the folly Ms. Tuchman is discussing? I’m talking about their refusal to accept any compromise with the Jews and their continual use of violence and terrorism, although it has never got them what they wanted (which is us out). Ms. Tuchman says that there must be three conditions for a historical event or process to be suitably foolish: 1. The results of the folly must be clear at the time of happening, and not just with hindsight. 2. There has to be an alternative policy that could have been implemented, and 3. It has to be the policy of a group and not of one leader.
It seems to me that the Palestinians fit the description. You may claim that the Palestinians never had a sovereign state or a proper government. True, but they always had recognized leaders with popular support and an ability to lead their people in a different direction.
Bish says we can’t say (if the Palestinians are suitably foolish), because we’re still in the middle of the process and they might still get what they want (Oy, vey! Not a pleasant thought).
Another scary thought, besides the thought that they may win, is that the joke’s on us, that we’re the foolish ones, and that our foolishness will bring to our downfall, this way or the other. Both sides of the political spectrum in Israel regularly claim that the other side’s policies will drive us into the sea.
In the desert midday July heat, this was not something I could work out. So I left it at that.
Another thing Tuchman says, which seems relevant, is that turning to outside powers for military assistance against an enemy at home always ends up with the foreign power invited in staying and taking over. This looks like what happened to the Palestinians in 1948, when their Arab brethren came to save them from the Zionist menace. The Egyptians and the Jordanians stayed on at the end of the war and the Palestinians, still waiting for the Arab countries to conquer the whole of Palestine for them, never got their state.
The Palestinians haven’t learnt, though. They’re still trying to get the Arabs to help them militarily and are deeply insulted that no one will. On second thoughts, I don’t think they need fear that the Arabs countries will take over again. They proved such a handful to rule last time, no one really wants to be bothered with them a second time.
Thinking over this assertion of Tuchman’s (about the dangers of inviting foreign powers to fight your wars for you) fills me with admiration for the United State’s benevolence, and amazed at the Europeans’ inability to appreciate it. The French, for instance, should be everlastingly thankful to the U.S. that they are still allowed to speak French in public. I think they should even learn English in order to express their gratitude (maybe that would be asking too much of them).
I admit that the U.S. has used its superiority to have a cultural and economic affect on most of the world. This has managed to annoy the Muslim World so much that they’ve announced a holy war against the U.S., no less. No normal person would think that these “crimes” of the generally well meaning U.S. are anywhere as bad as enslavement and forced conversion which is what the Muslims have in store for those lucky enough to survive slaughter, mayhem, gang rape and so on, if the tables are turned (that’s if you believe the rhetoric of their esteemed and revered religious leaders).
The Palestinians’ pals, the Anti-Globalists, contend that the economic World Order imposed by the U.S. is an intentional and wicked exploitation of poorer areas of the world. It seems to me that without this World Order, these poorer areas would be even poorer and even more miserable, as would we all. But then, Anti-Globalists, obviously not being normal people, would probably prefer enslavement and conversion by the Muslims. Go figure.
Thoughts that arose while reading the second chapter:
The second chapter discusses the foolishness of the Trojans in allowing the wooden horse into their besieged city. Were the Oslo Accords our Trojan horse? We let in Arafat and his cronies, who promised that they had given up the path of violence, accepted the State of Israel’s right to exist and would make do with sovereignty in the West Bank and Gaza and cease all demands for the “Historical Palestine” from Jordan River to sea. It took us a while to discover that they had no intention of making peace, or of giving up their former strategy, and Oslo was just another phase in their “plan of phases” of ridding the Middle East of the Zionists. They finally jumped out of that horse, swinging their swords, in September 2000, although we got a quite a few glimpses of what was inside the horse, all along, and chose to ignore them.
But what was our alternative option? The local Palestinian leaders refused to make a deal with us. Arafat was their only accepted leader. The international and internal pressure was immense. Inertia could have brought upon us tough international sanctions, which would have been unbearable coming with Israeli society split down the middle between growing numbers of the electorate calling for an end to the occupation and the large percentage still opposed, at that time, to any deal that entailed any withdrawal. We didn’t have a feasible alternative. Therefore our acceptance of Oslo does not comply with the conditions Ms. Tuchman lists that make for a foolish decision.
Phew!
Now I’ve got all that down, I’ll go see what’s been happening in the world since we’ve been gone.