A Moment That Struck
by Adam | Wednesday 23 January 2008
The first night we stayed at a hostel in Jerusalem that was somewhat removed from the city center. It was cold and foggy, but from my window I could see the lays of Mt. Herzl (think Israeli Arlington Cemetery) and Yad Vashem (National Holocaust Museum) on their adjacent hills in the semi-distance.
When I relayed this to the guide, about the view, in kind of an appreciation/mesmerization, he shot back to ask (as only an Israeli would) and you like this view?
And I thought how taken I was with these monuments to sad obliterations of Jewish histories, the complete purges, and what did that say about me? How it defined some sense of duty, how I would be driven if if I woke with this view everyday, if it spoke of some system of personal value, some part of some emotional treatise on more and more selfhoods and identities...if it was something I really owned myself.
I didn't feel that view held me in some abeyance of responsibility, some absence of duty, like I was free for pledging whatever it is I am supposed to pledge for any movement simply because I was there, me, standing at a window staring through the fog into Jerusalem, away from the part of the city where all they talk about is God and instead only ask if one exists.
Comments (5)
Mt. Herzl and Yad Vashem are not monuments to sad obliteration - they are a celebration of Jewish existence and survival.
At Mt. Herzl Israel Israel (i.e. Am Yisrael) recognizes its fallen and celebrates what their sacrifice has created/protected. While still a cemetary, that Jews have a cemetary of its kind is as much a memorial as it is a monument to Jewish soverignty and self-rule - to finally, after millenia of wandering, coming home and rejoining the people of this earth as shapers of our own destiny.
Similarly, Yad Vashem is Israel's chance to tell the world of those who tried and failed to destroy us - just as we celebrate Purim to remind ourselves and others that we will not be denied our existence, we will continue. At Yad Vashem, it is Jews who tell the story of Nazi Germany's spark that set off the flames of non-Jewish hate. It is not, as would otherwise have been the case, Hitler's narrative of the Jewish world he obliterated. It is as much a memorial to the millions of murdered as it is a monument to our survival.
Your guide should know better.
Posted by Otter425 | 31 January @ 12:55
If I want to classify these places as monuments to sad obliteration, I will. Characteristically enough, you leave no room for other interpretation. If you want to start a conversation, do it with less certainty, otherwise it just sounds arrogant.
Yad Vashem, especially the new one, is not anyone's chance to tell anyone how the world has tried and failed to destroy us; I'm assuming you haven't been there yet and are speaking in blind generalizations. Meanwhile, Mt Herzl serves many functions and means many things, among them, the sad obliteration of a generation of young Israelis who have done the things its country has asked of them like go ill-equipped into a war last summer or protect enclaves of arrogantly zealous settlers surrounded by the enemies and die needlessly doing so. This is not to dishonor anyone, but when you go to a place like Har Herzl with Israeli soldiers (or as one), you ask yourself a lot of questions.
Here's one or two for you:
Have you ever lived there? Have you lived there post-September 28, 2000?
Posted by Adam | 2 February @ 17:09
You're certainly entitled to your opinions - just as I am to my own. However, I note that I suggested that your guide was in error - I did not challenge your right to classify anything in any way.
As for speaking with certainty, it's not meant to be arrogant. I make no pretense at omniscience. But I fail to see the utility in speaking at all unless you believe what you say - so why equivocate? If I am wrong, let someone more knowledgeable, or of a different mind disagree and state clearly why.
Speaking now to the substance of your comments.
I was speaking of the "old" Yad Vashem, having not seen the "new", and note that memorials (as Yad Vashem is described) serve the purpose of celebration - Yad Vashem, by memorializing (i.e. mourning) the murdered, it celebrates the survivors. By possessing a Jewish character (a self-described trait), Yad Vashem celebrates the survival of Am Yisrael. This is a generality, but one (I believe to be) inherent to the nature of memorial efforts.
Mt. Herzl, as I imagine is the point with Yad Vashem, certainly does mean many things to many people. But its essence (again, in my opinion) is a place for Jews to honor and bury their warriors - no matter the circumstances of their sacrifice. Perhaps it is simply a matter of perspective, but I argue that if you believe in the nobility of the sacrifice of Israel's soldiers (even if the circumstances that led to their death were/are disagreeable), then a place that honors them as does Mt. Herzl is a celebration of their commitment to us all - and a place for us to pay our respects and honor their courage, dedication, and memory. I admit I draw not on an Israeli perspective, but an American and Jewish perspective. I draw on my experience of having visited Mt. Herzl in the past, and my many visits to Arlington Cemetery in America. Given the similarity in values between American and Israeli society, and my position as a Jew to further bridge the divide, I don't feel that I am speaking out of turn.
As to your questions, my answer to both is no.
Posted by Otter425 | 8 February @ 18:00
No one makes a pretense at omniscience, that is a ridiculous idea. But correcting instead of challenging is not a tactic for conversation, it's actually the formula for more obstinacy.
Maybe I just don't know what I believe quite as fervently as you do, but in short, the shrillness runs in counterpoise with the point of this blog. I'm attempting to offer my perspective, if you notice the crossed out motto at the top of this site reads: 'a clean well-lighted' place for Western voices to assert what's best for the Middle East.
The 'clean well-lighted place' is a reference (however snotty) to Hemingway. I've traveled to these places frequently and lived there often; you can see how one might take offense to being corrected by someone who hasn't (especially post Intifada). I don't think Daniel Pipes and Hemingway would have a lot to say to each other.
As for the venues, I recently led a trip of people who'd never been to Israel to both of these sites and not one of 40 of them came out of either place feeling like they were more prideful or celebratory of anything. Rather, they were all deflated and in tears, especially as we had five Israeli soldiers and two reservists with us who also didn't feel particularly honored by either place and instead, saw them as a byproduct of the obstinacy some of us revile.
Posted by Adam | 17 February @ 18:43
I can certainly appreciate being ruffled by percieved lecturing from one viewed as ignorant to someone informed. But here I think it's more of a "you say tomato..." It's hard to divine tone from print, so I'll suggest that the difference between "correcting" and "challenging" in an exchange such as this is likely to prove a distinction without a difference.
Since we both know I'm not well versed in what falls into the category of literature, you'll have to pardon my ignorance fo the Hemmingway reference - or please feel free to elucidate (seriously). Somehow I think Hemmingway and Daniel Pipes would carry on a lovely conversation about the weather - each being devoted to different pusruits. You think, maybe, the Buddah and Nikki Sixx would have much to say to one another either?
Now, in the way of a more serious reply. Places of mourning and remeberence are only places of jublient celebration in sick, perverted minds and lands. Maybe I should have used a thesaurus, but one needn't serve cake and hand out hats and baloons to celebrate something - a memorial can celebrate without throwing a party - am I making sense? See some of the synonyms and definitions listed here which I think might help explain more what I'm trying to say (though, then again, maybe it won't!).
Ultimately, your point is well taken, but for the record, I feel I've been misunderstood. Still, no sense in belaboring the point, and I promise not to continue beyond this post. Unless you start calling me names like "Mughniyah-lover" - then all bets are off!!
I will take issue, however, with being labeled obstinate in such a manner (I am reading a tone rife with negativity). If obstinacy is in this space defined to include a belief in the absolute necessity of self-defense in the face of hostility, then obstinate I certainly am. But this would be a poor choice of words, since the alternative is usually (historically) an unpleasant death. (I think most human beings are "obstinate" in their pursuit of continued life on this planet. Am I wrong?) If nothing else, you are not a man of poor word choices, and so I'm left wodnering what you could possibly mean by that.
Posted by Otter425 | 22 February @ 16:46