Israel and the Sudanese Refugees

I don’t agree very often with Larry Derfner, the Jerusalem Post’s resident left-winger and a guy who thinks he’ll single-handedly save Zionism through his bad writing. But his column today is surprisingly spot on.

The Sudanese refugees who Olmert intends to send back to Egypt, a country that has abused them and will more likely than not deport them back to Sudan, pose no threat to Israel. They aren’t terrorists – they are fleeing from the terrorists. They have repeatedly expressed their gratitude to Israel – to the soldiers who gave them food and water when they first crossed the borders, to the kibbutzim where they were taken in and given employment, even to the prison guards who treated them more humanely than they had ever been treated before. And there are just a few thousand of them, no more of a threat to Israel’s Jewish identity than the Vietnamese boat people that Menachem Begin chose to allow into the country or the many foreign workers living legally within it.

Israel should let these people stay, because those who love Israel expect no less of such a fundamentally decent country.

Not because Israel has more of a responsibility than Egypt to take in these refugees, because that punishes Israel for being a democracy. Not because Jewish refugees were once turned away from many countries, because that places an unfair historical burden on Israel. Not because this will make Israel look bad in the eyes of the media, because they will never portray Israeli actions accurately or fairly, or the international community, because that despicable group of dictatorships, terrorist appeasers, and thugs have, simply put, no room to talk.

Instead, Israel should allow these few thousand people to stay and rebuild their lives, just because it seems like the decent thing to do. No more, no less.

Anti-Zionism Worse than Anti-Semitism?

Judea Pearl, Israeli-born father of Daniel Pearl, the journalist murdered by Islamic terrorists in Pakistan in 2002, argues in an article in the New York Jewish Week that though “many condemn anti-Zionism for being a flimsy cover for anti-Semitism…anti-Zionism is a form of racism more dangerous than classical anti-Semitism.”

I have to say I’m in agreement with a great deal of what he says.

Anti-Zionism of the sort found in Parisian cafes and American campuses is, in today’s world, a worse form of hatred towards the Jewish people than Pope Benedict reviving the Latin Mass or a Polish villager still wondering whether Jews have horns. Anti-Zionism isn’t a matter of theological differences or ignorance, but is instead a deliberate effort to deny the Jews any common history, to deny them the same rights of nationhood as they do the Germans, the Indians, and the Spanish. Surely, both Popes and Polish villagers caused great harm to Jews in the past precisely because of theological differences and ignorance, but I’d say it’s extremely important to couple our historical perspective with a rigid analysis of current realities.

Thus, anti-Zionism should be a greater cause for concern, because it is a much more current threat. As Pearl notes, “people of conscience reject anti-Semitism,” but “anti-Zionist rhetoric has become a mark of academic sophistication and social acceptance in Europe and in some U.S. campuses”.

And then there’s the factor of the anti-Zionism/anti-Semitism that I really hadn’t considered before: the anti-Zionist argument, by definition, is anti-Israel. Anti-Zionists deny the Israeli people the right to a state, to an army, to a history, to a normal life. That’s already an act of racism against Israelis, even before one considers that it discriminates against Jews in theory.

I feel a bit guilty that I hadn’t thought of that before in that way. It’s not through any lack of concern for Israelis – the opening strains of “Hatikva” move me more greatly than any Shabbat service I’ve attended – but instead the way the debate is defined in American discourse.

Perhaps the way I would formulate my argument is that anti-Zionism, in theory, is anti-Semitic, because it denies the Jews a common history, the national rights accorded to all others, and a place of refuge, if, G-d forbid, that was needed. But anti-Zionism, in practice, is anti-Israel, and a little more dangerous because of its current consequences – the threat isn’t hypothetical or theoretical as it is for Jews in the Diaspora, but is instead on Israel’s very borders. Anti-Zionists may be worse than anti-Semites, because rather than simply insulting Jews, they support, explicitly or implicitly, through their anti-Israel stances the intentions of those who want to murder or disenfranchise, not just insult, Israelis.

*** This post is obviously not intended to refer to the terrorists themselves – who combine their political and religious hatred and murder Israelis because they are Jews, Israelis because they are Israeli, and Diaspora Jews because they are Jews and potential Israelis.

The Six-Day War, 40 Years Later

The 40-year anniversary of the 6-Day War is fast approaching, bringing with it new analyses of the causes and consequences of this historic event. Of course, this also means an unending stream of commentary in the mainstream media about the “occupation” the Israeli victory has “imposed” on the Palestinian Arabs.

Outside of mainstream Israeli sources, centrist to conservative commentaries, and pro-Israel and Jewish organizations, there is no mention of the Arab hostility that provoked the war, the rejectionism after the war, the rise of Palestinian terrorism before there was any occupation, and the many, many times the Palestinians have reneged on treaties or refused to compromise.

In fact, there is no acknowledgement at all of the fact that Israel had no alternative to victory, that the idealized pre-1967 Israel was one that was vulnerable and weak. There is no acknowledgement of the fact that Arab hostility isn’t about the “occupation”, but about the very existence of Israel. The majority of the media and the Israeli “peace camp” continue hold on to the myth of “land for peace”, even though every territorial withdrawal has led to more and more attacks on Israel’s people. When there is a real sign that the Palestinians are ready for a real peace, and that their goal is truly a state of their own and not the destruction of Israel, I do think many of us who are “hawkish” today will be more willing to compromise.

Jonathan Tobin has a very good piece about the blindness, hypocrisy, and downright hostility that characterizes so much of the coverage of the Six-Day War.  

Yom Ha’atzmaut

 

Today is Yom Ha’atzmaut, Israeli Independence Day, marking 59 years (in the Jewish calendar) since David Ben-Gurion declared the State of Israel on May 14, 1948 (or the 5th of Iyar, 5708).

This past year was one of challenges for Israel, from the war with Hezbollah with ambiguous results to the growing number of corruption scandals plaguing the government to the fact that the three soldiers kidnapped last summer are not home yet. Yet there is so much to be proud of and rejoice in. The Israeli economy is growing, more books are being published there per capita than in almost anywhere else in the world, immigrants are being integrated at a rapid pace, and their children speak Hebrew as well as any native-born Israeli. Most importantly, the only Jewish state in the world has maintained its democratic values and intrinsic sense of morality in the face of unthinkable enmity, in word and in deed, from so many quarters. Yes, there is much to celebrate this Yom Ha’atzmaut.

This day comes immediately after Yom Ha’zikaron, the memorial day for Israel’s fallen soldiers and victims of terror – a reminder of the constant fluidity of happiness and sorrow in this nation whose citizens have experienced both emotions so intensely. I watched the ceremony marking this transition on Israeli television, and while I understood only snippets of the Hebrew speeches, songs, and prayers, it was remarkable seeing the tears and the joy and the hope of the people, young and old, religious and secular. 

This poignant love of land and country is what made a nerdy shiksa (but not for long) like me fall for this tiny place that no ancestor of mine ever prayed for. It is what made me seriously consider becoming an IDF volunteer upon graduation, despite my inability to climb a small hill without shortness of breath (fortunately for the IDF, I’ll be too old to offer my services). When I think of the sacrifices made to make Israel a reality, but also about the daily successes and (dare I say?) miracles that take place there, I truly want to be a better person. I hope that, one day, I will have made some small contribution to this wonderful country that makes me laugh and cry and love at the same time.

Yom Huledet Sameach, Israel!

I Love Angie Merkel

The next time I hear Germany-bashing at a pro-Israel conference, I’ll have to remind the detractors of this:

Palestinians ‘offended’ by Merkel’s pro-Israel stance

Palestinian Authority officials have accused German Chancellor Angela Merkel of “offending the Palestinians’ feelings” during her visit earlier this week to Ramallah, where she met with PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas.

…”She did everything to provoke the Palestinians during her visit,” said one official. “She showed no understanding for the plight of our people. On the other hand, she appeared to be very biased toward Israel.”

…At the joint press conference with Abbas, Merkel refused to answer a question about the Palestinian prisoners in Israel, the official added. “She appeared to be obsessed with the case of Gilad Schalit,” he said. “But she refused to even acknowledge the fact that we have more than 10,000 prisoners in Israel.”

…”We were hoping to show her the wall that Israel built around Bethlehem, but she refused to go there,” he said. “President Abbas was hoping to draw parallels between Israel’s wall and the Berlin Wall. He wanted to remind Merkel of the days when she lived in East Berlin.”

…”This woman is trying to be more Israeli than the Israelis,” the official said. “During her talks with President Abbas, she totally ignored major issues related to the peace process and chose to focus on the case of Gilad Schalit.

“Germany will not be able to play any role in the peace process because of the chancellor’s bias to Israel…”

…”We were hoping to show her the wall that Israel built around Bethlehem, but she refused to go there,” he said. “President Abbas was hoping to draw parallels between Israel’s wall and the Berlin Wall. He wanted to remind Merkel of the days when she lived in East Berlin.”

Wow. A Western European leader who isn’t willing to put up with the Palestinians’ propagandist bullshit. Angela Merkel really is a breath of fresh air. I love this woman!

Bias at the BBC (a shocker!)

The BBC has long been criticized for the trenchant anti-Israel bias in its coverage of the Middle East. Now, the Daily Mail reports that the corporation has spent more than £200,000 of taxpayer money in an attempt to block access to internal papers concerning this bias.

This is characteristic of the hypocritical heart of the sanctimonious European left, as well as those American institutions that seek to emulate it. A news corporation that routinely engages in self-congratulation over its “tradition of investigative journalism” is desperate to prevent information about its own massive flaws from becoming available.

The courageous BBC which French and Dutch families used to listen to under the covers during the German occupation died a long time ago. It was replaced by a hateful and corrupt institution deserving of no plaudits whatsoever.

A Deadly Game of ‘I Spy’

A week or so ago, I went to see The Lives of Others, a German film which recently won the Oscar for Best Foreign Film. Returning home later, deeply impressed and moved by the feature, I began reading over the various reviews on IMDb and was quite surprised to find that this was director Florian Henckel von Donnersmarck’s debut film. The multi-layered yet elegant plot, the nuanced character studies, and the retained element of the unexpected that made this film possibly the best I have seen in years had led me to believe it was the work of a seasoned filmmaker.

The film, though set in the waning years of the German Democratic Republic (the former East Germany), gives no indication of being influenced by hindsight. The characters live their daily lives in an atmosphere of fear, blackmail, and betrayal, and none give the impression of expecting in the slightest the dramatic changes that will occur in a matter of years. At the center of this political thriller and personal drama is a senior Stasi agent, Gerd Wiesler (played brilliantly by Ulrich Muehe), who believes unswervingly in the rightness of socialism and trains new recruits in the destruction of its perceived enemies. He is sent to monitor the playwright Georg Dreyman, who has until now stayed afloat by cooperating with the regime, and his girlfriend, the stage actress Christa-Maria, who is the object of a high-ranking party minister’s lust.

After wiretapping the couple’s apartment and threatening their neighbor into silence, Wiesler goes about his task of listening to every conversation and watching every movement that takes place. He notes the illegal delivery of Western newspapers and conversations with dissident friends; he listens to the couple making love, and mentions it in his daily report; he is deeply moved by a piano performance of Dreyman’s and “borrows” his copy of Brecht’s poetry. Through such an intense immersion into the couple’s lives, as well as the realization that his assignment was motivated by personal as well as political reasons, Wiesler is spurred to act on the couple’s behalf, which has tragic consequences for all involved.

The ending, however, is a somewhat redeeming one - bittersweet, yet not at all cloying. Wiesler’s redemption does not come from outright heroism, but from achieving the ability to empathize with his fellow man in a time and place where such feelings were routinely compromised.

Perhaps what is most striking about this film is the way in which it shows the reality of the GDR through subtle touches and the use of contrasts instead of heavy-handed didacticism. There are no depictions of brutal beatings or dissidents being shot, but instead small scenes illustrating that this was a society where lives could be ruined because of a joke about the party chairman or a question about the regime’s humanity. The scenes depicting Stasi headquarters and “everyday life” in the GDR are bathed in dull grays and yellows, while those depicting Dreyman, Christa-Maria, and their circle of friends show the relative warmth and passion of their lives. Wiesler is shown as a quiet and solitary figure who returns every night to a starkly bare apartment, watching official propaganda on the news and indulging in ugly sex with an ugly prostitute. Dreyman, on the other hand, relishes the company of others, lives in a beautiful apartment filled with books and art – an oasis from the the mind-numbing conformity of the state, and is passionately in love with Christa-Maria. Wiesler fulfills his role in society with precision and without conflict, while Dreyman is anguished over compromising his principles in order to maintain a good life. It is the collision of these contrasting worlds that put into motion the events of this film.

Besides the accolades it has received for being a terrific film, The Lives of Others is also significant in the German cultural landscape in that it marks a departure from the recent wave of popular films, most notably Goodbye, Lenin, which seemed to betray a sense of “Ostalgie“, or nostalgia for the former East Germany. Films like The Lives of Others remind their audiences that the GDR was not just bad fashion, drab architecture, and a lack of variety at the grocery store. It was instead a state ruled by fear, not cause for kitsch, but for remembrance.

The Lives of Others left me wondering why there were not others like it, or why Donnersmarck had to spend years looking for a distributor despite his film’s miniscule budget and compelling plot. Was it because many in the leftist intelligentsia, both in Europe and America, did all they could to portray socialism as a flawed yet inherently just ideology, choosing to emphasize low unemployment without showing the torture chambers? Was it because Hollywood, outraged by McCarthyism, decided to strike back by promoting the myth that there was, in essence, no real difference between the West and the Soviet bloc? Might there be a smidgen of guilt among these people in regards to the fact that the cause they so enthusiastically championed did so much to stifle the human spirit?

That is not for me to say, but I hope there are many more films like The Lives of Others which will allow us to more fully understand and come to terms with an ideology that enslaved half a continent and caused so much irreparable harm.

Fair and Balanced, at least in the Middle East

I’m not a hip person. I seriously cannot think of a single aspect of my personality that would qualify me as such. I go to mainstream religious services every week, read National Review and Commentary magazines, study the role of collective memory in the formation of national identity, am not familiar with most underground bands, have clothing and accessories best described as “ethnic WASP”, and, finally, have a serious dislike of ”hipsters” themselves, both the real ones and the wannabes.

Thus, I am naturally wary of the recent crop of Jewish publications that market themselves to the “hipster” set. But, a piece I read yesterday in one of these magazines, Guilt and Pleasure (‘cuz, you know, it’s a Jewish hipster mag), actually managed to resonate deeply with my feelings. In “The Fair and Unbalanced Truth”, Aaron Hamburger writes of how, during Israel’s war with Lebanon in Summer 2006, he found himself repeatedly turning back to Fox News for coverage on that matter, despite his unabashed liberalism and aversion to Fox on every other issue.

Although I am not exactly coming from Hamburger’s perspective, having moved steadily rightward in recent years, I felt much of what he describes in his piece. Fox News, or at least its talk show hosts, is not my brand of conservatism. The aggressive, ignorant, and oftentimes hateful rhetoric of people like Bill O’Reilly or Sean Hannity is really no better than that of their counterparts on the left. Fox News was always the network I wished would be a better representation of conservative America, even as I lauded it for being a bulwark against the dominant liberal media.

But that changed in Summer 2006. Although I received most of my information about the war from Israeli newspapers and blogs, I could not shake the psychological impulse to watch live television coverage of the events as they unfolded. But having done a lot of work with CAMERA, a pro-Israel media watchdog group, I was also apprehensive about having to hear inaccurate and sensationalistic “information” about the situation. And then came Fox News.

Unlike Hamburger, I didn’t find comfort in Fox News because of the roundtable discussions with conservative columnists like Charles Krauthammer and Fred Barnes. I didn’t want editorializing, because I could get that in National Review or Marty Peretz’s column in the New Republic. Instead, I wanted the facts on the ground (from an American perspective, since I already had a variety of Israeli news sources), and I received them through Fox’s actual news programs.

Shepard Smith and Jennifer Griffin became my journalistic heroes in those weeks. They camped out in Kiryat Shmona and focused on the families holed up in bomb shelters. They interviewed businesspeople in the North who feared for their region’s economy. They spoke to the soldiers who were preparing for the invasion of Lebanon and to those who had returned from battle. Their reports emphasized Israeli fears and Israeli hopes, but also Israeli compassion, such as the many people further South who opened up their homes to complete strangers fleeing the violence in the North. They spoke to the soldiers with respect and admiration, not as interrogators. While CNN and MSNBC (the BBC is not even worth mentioning) presented the destruction of Beirut without reminding their viewers why that had to happen, FOX showed the Israel that I love, without bloviating about “both sides”, as if there was any moral equivalence. And I will always remember that.

I will also remember similarly President Bush’s actions during the war. Bush, like Fox News, was not a figure that I thought represented the best of conservatism. But, during the war, he said what needed to be said. At the G-8 Summit, his “Yo, Blair!” exclamation was quite unpresidential, but his comments immediately afterward, that “the thing is that what they need to do is get Syria to get Hezbollah to stop doing this shit and it’s over” were pretty on the mark. Instead of the incessant calls for a ceasefire, we needed to get Hezbollah to stop doing their shit. Bush got that.

A short time later, when the world had unleashed its attack dogs against Israel after Lebanese children were killed in an Israeli bombing, Bush made it clear that civillian deaths did not negate the original, righteous reasons for the war. He also emphasized that while mourning the deaths of the Lebanese children, we should also remember the many Israeli children who were sleeping in bomb shelters at the time. I voted for Kerry in 2004, and never really regretted it even after becoming more conservative. But, I felt that first twinge of regret when he said that.

But a last word about Fox. Hamburger felt a contradiction between his aversion to Fox’s talking heads and his agreement with the pro-Israel stances at the roundtable discussions. I felt no such contradiction, not really because I’m more conservative, but because I found comfort in Fox’s news coverage, not their commentary. Those are two very different aspects of the network. Fox News, before 5 p.m., is really news, without much of a bias. It is only its evening progams that are loud, obnoxious, and bring the most viewers. Its actual news coverage seemed perfectly normal.

I began this post by discussing how decidedly not hip I was. I didn’t mention that I was also proud of that. To be hip today almost demands that one sneer at Israel and not understand its interests in the least, and in light of that, I revel in my squareness as I watch Fox News and appreciate their coverage…before 5 p.m.

Why Peretz Should Resign NOW

Just in case his utter incompetence as Defense Minister was not proven in Summer 2006, this is the unfortunate throwback to ossified socialism esteemed Amir Peretz “watching” a military maneuver. It is really an embarrassment to Israel’s political system to continue to have this miserable failure at the helm of perhaps the most important ministry a state can have in a time of growing security threats.

A War of Definitions?

After the 2006 midterm elections, one would think that liberals would be too busy riding the waves of their successes to engage in hand-wringing defensiveness. But, alas, that is not the case.

So, what seems to be the problem this time around? Was Al Gore sucked in by the hole in the ozone layer? Did a Republican inadvertently take a swig of Ted Kennedy’s scotch? Did they not find enough angels to harmonize the “Hallelujah” chorus under Barack Obama’s feet every time he took a step?

No, it seems that in my country there is problem, and the problem is the Jews (again!). Alvin J. Rosenfeld, an English professor at Indiana University, has caused a rhetorical ruckus with his report, ” ‘Progressive’ Jewish Thought and the New Anti-Semitism”, which was recently published by the American Jewish Committee. In it, he argues that ideologues on the far left, often using their Jewishness to reinforce their anti-Israel stances, have contributed to perpetuating the “new” anti-Semitism that defames the Jewish people through delegitimizing the Jewish state. Critics of the report, sometimes coming from staunch supporters of Israel such as Leon Wieseltier, say that it attempts to stifle dissent, while its defenders feel relieved that there is more public exposure of the anti-Semitic aspects of anti-Israel rhetoric.

The criticism of the report is interesting. It seems to me that there were many disagreements and misunderstandings as to what the basic terms discussed in the report – progressive, criticism of Israel, anti-Semitism – actually meant. I think in order to have a better understanding of the Rosenfeld report and its actual arguments and intentions, it is necessary to look at those terms and define them. I’ll attempt to do that from my perspective, which I believe is similar to Rosenfeld’s in regards to concern about Israel.

Progressive. Many critics of the report took this to mean that this was criticizing any left-of-center individual as being an enemy of Israel and a potential anti-Semite. Personally, I feel that the term “progressive” has a more radical connotation than “liberal”. To me, liberals smirk at SUV drivers, while progressives prance in hipster keffiyehs. I always assumed the progressive was the slutty, pot-smoking younger cousin of the liberal, but then I read in an (unrelated to this issue) article in the New York Times that many used the term “progressive” as a more P.C. alternative to “liberal” – as a result of conservative attacks on the word “liberal”. So “progressive” is the more moderate term? That’s up for debate, but in regards to the Rosenfeld report, it is absolutely clear that he is not referring to mainstream liberals, but the radical left. Maybe he should have titled his report “The Radical Left and the New Anti-Semitism” to avoid the confusion.

Criticism of Israel. The charge is often made that all critics of Israel are described as anti-Semitic, and that this is an attempt to stifle. This is patently false and absurd, seeing as how most Israelis, as well as their supporters abroad, criticize many, many things about their country. The Rosenfeld report does not refer to legitimate criticism of Israel. It points out, among others, the playwright Tony Kushner, who referred to Israel’s establishment as a “catastrophe”, and historian Tony Judt (what is with these Tonys?), who called for a binational state. That goes well beyond the bounds of legitimate debate and should be pointed out as such. But there was no “stifling” involved, since those individuals described by Rosenfeld as aiding anti-Semitism are voicing their hatred with more vehemence than ever before. In addition, it is a fact that the only criticism of Israel that is actually classified as “criticism” is that which concerns the conflict between Israel and the Arabs (the Palestinian Arabs in the West Bank and Gaza, the neighboring Arab states, and the Arab citizens of Israel), and that is inherently unjust. I criticize Israel all the time – in regards to ultra-Orthodox influence on civil affairs, in regards to Israel’s slowness in privatization that hinders economic growth, in regards to corruption at all levels of government. But because I agree to a great extent with Israel’s defense policies, my criticism (and that of many Israelis and their supporters) is not considered real criticism. What about those who criticize Israel for not being harsh enough on the Palestinians? That’s also not considered criticism, because the left feels as if they have sole ownership of the word. So, who’s really doing the stifling?

Anti-Semitism. So when is criticism of Israel anti-Semitic? I would say that singling out Israel for criticism not applied to any other democratic state is anti-Semitic. For example, saying that the bombardment of Beirut this past summer constituted “war crimes”, while not applying that epithet to the American bombardment of Afghanistan, is anti-Semitic. I am in no way saying that U.S. actions constitute war crimes, but if someone were to use that term to describe both the U.S. and Israel, then he/she would simply be wrong (factually and morally) but not anti-Semitic. Also, questioning Israel’s right to exist or suggesting a binational state is anti-Semitic. The very fact that the term “right to exist” is only used in regard to Israel, even sixty years after its establishment, is evidence of this, since no other nation but the Jewish nation has their very existence threatened on a regular basis. Anti-Zionism is anti-Semitism if one is not against French, German, Indian, etc. nationalism as well. Of course, criticism of Israel that is not anti-Semitic can be (and usually is) factually incorrect and morally myopic. That should be pointed out as well.

I read the report, and while I agree with its main points, I also feel that there were errors of both commission and omission. First, and this is not limited to Rosenfeld’s report, it is not enough to criticize Israel’s enemies; one must also support and engage with Israel proactively. Secondly, Rosenfeld does not include instances of “progressive” support for Israel, which would lead many to assume that he rules out the possibility of being simultaneously politically liberal and a supporter of Israel. Third, Rosenfeld unfairly puts the Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen into the group of anti-Israel “progressives” due to one sentence taken out of context. I am not a fan of Richard Cohen. His columns are naive, simplistic, and unbearably and arbitrarily sad; however, he is not anti-Israel or anti-Semitic. Other than those flaws, I feel that this report is a valuable analysis of the far left’s fixation with hating Israel and an exploration into ideas that are, at their core, expressions of anti-Semitism.

***Speaking of Richard Cohen, he actually responded to the criticism against him in a characteristically maudlin column in the Washington Post. Since today’s post dealt a great deal with the uses and misuses of rhetoric, I want to point out a catastrophe in Cohen’s rhetoric akin to the Hindenburg explosion, namely, his description of Israel as being “the orphaned waif of the Holocaust”. WTF, Richard Cohen? How does that even work? So, Hitler’s the baby daddy, and the Jews are the baby mama(s), and they’re all dead, so that leaves an orphaned waif, Israel? Instead of superior armed forces, is Israel’s real need an extra bowl of gruel like the orphaned waifs of Dickens’s time? Ugh. Ick. [Insert guttural expression of distate].

The sad thing is that he meant that phrase as a compliment, which fills with bewilderment people like myself who view Israel as strong, vibrant, and wonderful – a cause for admiration, joy, and passion, but certainly not for pity. But that’s another post altogether.