The Cherry Orchard

The 61st General Assembly of the United Nations is going to convene in mid-September, and since I live in New York City I thought I’d pop on to UN.org, the official United Nations website to check out the session agenda and plan a possible visit.

I was about to be taken on a surreal trip. After spending two and a half hours reviewing various sections of this website, I am disgusted that such an important website is being run so shabbily. Does anyone in this organization realize that internet communication is an important, growing trend? I state above that Al-Qaeda has better websites than the United Nations. How do I know this? Well, I am a professional web designer, and I follow my field enough to know that there are numerous webmasters who support Al-Qaeda’s operations who have demonstrated basic competence in their field. Based on the evidence, that is more than can be said for the operators of UN.org.

I know that Al-Qaeda has a better website than UN.org because — no joke — my 15-year-old son’s MySpace page is a better website than UN.org.

Here’s what you’ll find if you dive into this mess. The most important documents are only available in PDF form — not secure documents, but simple press releases and agenda announcements. This indicates that the site does not have a working web content management system at all. This is bad, but it gets worse: many attempts to download these documents (over, say, my 99/9% reliable cable modem connection) don’t work at all, but instead spin forever, or else they deliver this familiar friend:

I tried many different paths through the multi-lingual, multi-platform and multi-broken website, and found myself looking at .jsp pages, .asp pages (Microsoft began phasing .asp out in favor of .aspx about four years ago), .shtml pages (totally archaic) and many, many custom extensions followed by frightening, endless strings of encoded parameters that clearly were not delivering the right codes.

The only common architectural principle behind most of the paths was that they all ended in sudden crashes. Oh yeah, webcasts are promised, except they often end up looking like this:

Even if the site were not broken in so many places (and maybe I caught it on a bad day), the lack of inspiration behind the technical architecture is staggering. Sure, this problem is an amusing metaphor for the UN’s general lack of effectiveness, but I don’t think we should laugh it off too easily. Digital communication is more than just a metaphor in 2006. It’s a key competency, and UN.org doesn’t have it.

I’m a professional web developer (my work has included PearlJam.com, WordsWithoutBorders.org, LitKicks.com, BobDylan.com and BruceSpringsteen.net) and I am willing to offer my services to the United Nations at a fair price, if they promise to first fire the bozos currently running these pizza boxes, as well as the pencil-pushers who determine the site’s layout and structure. I trust somebody in the organization understands email enough to contact me at levi.asher@gmail.com.

Last night I met six friends for dinner and debate in the West Village. We had all agreed beforehand to spend an entire dinner discussing future Middle East policy in a structured format. This group was largely made up of software developers, and had an interesting makeup:

• three Christians and four Jews

• two born in Lebanon, one born in Israel, four born in U.S.A.

• five men, two women

This was the second time we arranged a dinner debate, a practice occasioned by the fact that our friend Fadi tends to express himself a bit loudly when possessed of an opinion (and, to tell the truth, some have said the same about me, and I have an opinion or two myself).

Previous social get-togethers had devolved into anarchic yellfests, so this time we agreed to take turns speaking, 90 seconds at a time, with interruptions forbidden. 15 second rebuttals were also available, but everybody had to wait their turn to speak, and each person was assured equal time. We appointed Yaniv as moderator and Dave as time-keeper, and managed to make this format work for an hour and a half.

We learned something amazing during this conversation: when you take the time to structure a discussion and direct it towards a single topic, highly intelligent ideas and solutions can emerge. We listened hard to each other, we tried to understand each other’s viewpoints, and by the end of the dinner we were doing nothing but laughing, high-fiving and tossing around side arguments such as which web development platform is better, PHP/Javascript or Java/Struts (the answer, of course, is PHP/Javascript) just for fun.

If you tend to have loud political arguments that lead nowhere with your family or friends, I suggest you try a structured approach. Why are unstructured arguments always so bad? Well, people like to talk more than they like to listen. Do the math — if you put five or more people who want to talk together, you get a mash of half-finished thoughts, and it doesn’t matter what you say anyway, since everybody is too busy thinking about what they want to say to listen to what you’re saying.

A structured argument can have very unexpected positive results. Now that I see that Evan, Fadi, Sabine, Dave, Amy, Yaniv, Carl and I can survive an hour and a half of this and end up smiling, I wonder how many other problems can also be solved in this way.

It’s Monday morning, and a fragile cease-fire is in place between Israel and Hizbollah. Few expert commentators expect the cease-fire to last, but maybe it will last long enough for the dialogue between the warring sides to improve. As I’ve noted here before, there currently exists no significant dialogue at all between the various sides in this battle, and linguistic barriers are the least of the problems. Each side clings to different histories, different basic premises, which makes rational discussion impossible.

For perhaps only a few days — maybe more, maybe less, who knows? — the rockets and jet fighters are silenced. Please, let a war of words begin, because that is our best chance for an end to this misery.

Some news items:

1. The son of Israeli novelist David Grossman was killed Saturday on the ground in Lebanon, where he was fighting with a tank unit. David Grossman has represented Israel’s troubled but stubborn anti-war movement with books like The Yellow Wind. Earlier this year, Grossman participated in the PEN World Voices festival in New York City, where he attempted to participate in a one-on-one conersation with Palestinian/Lebanese author Elias Khoury that was sadly cancelled due to political considerations.

2. The great research journalist Seymour Hersh, who’s been raking muck since the Vietnam War, has written a New Yorker article exposing the American-Israeli agreements that led to Israel’s aggressive response to Hizbollah’s incursions.

3. Peace — hah! The regular retinue of war, deprivation, provocation and ridiculous propaganda continues unabated today in Gaza, Iraq, Sri Lanka, The Congo and Sudan. Some world we live in!

Please, let the war of words begin …

Eighteen notable writers, including Harold Pinter, Toni Morrison and Russell Banks, have issued a short statement about the current war. It culminates in one pointed paragraph:

Each provocation and counter-provocation is contested and preached over. But the subsequent arguments, accusations and vows, all serve as a distraction in order to divert world attention from a long-term military, economic and geographic practice whose political aim is nothing less than the liquidation of the Palestinian nation.

There’s plenty of room for argument here — why does this article hint at two-sided-ness but then fail to mention that there are also significant long-term military, economic and geographic practices aiming for the liquidation of the Israeli nation? Regardless, these eighteen writers are to be commended for speaking clearly and simply, for stating premises that lead to a conclusion, and for keeping their message short and sharp.

High quality discourse is absolutely essential to the peace process. Whether one agrees with these eighteen writers or not, one can at least appreciate that the clarity of their statement might bring the discussion to the next level by allowing responses of similar clarity.

Then there’s Jostein Gaarder of Norway, the very successful author of Sophie’s World, a book that presents the history of philosophy in a meta-fictional framework. This book was an impressive achievement, and it’s shocking and disheartening to read an Aftenposten article by this author that culminates in a vivid fantasy of Israel defeated and its people sent into exile (at which point Gaarder urges, with facetious sympathy, that the nationless wanderers should not be hurt):

They are vulnerable now like snails without shells, vulnerable like slow caravans of Palestinian and Lebanese refugees, defenseless like women and children and the old in Qana, Gaza, Sabra, and Chatilla. Give the Israeli refugees shelter, give them milk and honey!

This is a revenge fantasy, and I am seriously disturbed to find a reputable author of a popular book on philosophy indulging himself in this type of emotional excess at a time when actual war rages, a time when words matter. This is not a vision of peace but of humiliation. A snail without a shell, Mr. Gaarder? In fact, revenge fantasies are a dime a dozen in our violent times. There are certainly also Israelis who dream of seeing their Palestinian enemies finally defeated and hopeless. Revenge fantasies are common, but what they are not is helpful.
I’m looking forward to using this site to critique public statements on difficult global issues, especially statements made by writers. I hope this will turn out to be a helpful way to shed light on difficult problems. Today’s quick check turns up one group that’s angry but trying to help … and one writer who’s angry but has nothing helpful to offer.

I’ve mentioned CGJT (the Committee to Give Jerusalem to Tibet) before. One interesting feature of this organization is that it does not exist. I made up the name as the fake sponsor of a poetry reading I arranged at the Bowery Poetry Club in the Spring of 2002.

This was a time when the daily carnage in Israel and Palestine was nearly as bad as the carnage in Lebanon and Israel is today. I put posters with this fake organization’s name up all over New York City, and I was then very pleased to find the name living on after the event was over. “The Committee to Give Jerusalem to Tibet (CGJT)” would randomly appear as a fake sponsor of various other event listings at the Bowery Poetry Club for the next month (I’m pretty sure this was the handiwork of club owner Bob Holman, though we never said a word about it to each other).

The name is a joke, but there’s a very serious (and fairly obvious) suggestion behind it. Any long-lasting peace settlement between Israelis and Palestinians should involve equally sharing the city of Jerusalem, where great numbers of Jews and Muslims live and worship at historic temples. Realistically, the solution is likely to involve some kind of international overseeing force. This force would need to have sovereign authority, and therefore what we are proposing amounts to the internationalization of Jerusalem.

This wouldn’t be easy to achieve, of course. Battling would occur. I can think of three groups that would vigorously (and violently) fight this type of equitable settlement: fundamentalist Muslims, fundamentalist Christians and fundamentalist Jews. Nevertheless, it is the right approach and it must be considered.

Jon Stewart recently said as much on The Daily Show while interviewing political critic Vali Nasr, author of Shia Revival. As they discussed possible solutions to the Middle East, Stewart asked why we don’t just internationalize the city of Jerusalem. Nasr and Stewart kicked this around for a long time, agreeing that this might actually work. You can see the video here.

Here’s an easy way to get laughed at: join a group of people discussing the war in the Middle East and propose that the Buddhist religion offers a practical path to peace.

I tried arguing this in my office at work on Friday, with predictable results. I remain undeterred, because I continue to hope that religious leaders unaffiliated with the Judeo-Christian-Islamic spheres of influence might be able to play a mediating role in the current conflict.  Those of us who wish for change in the Middle East need to actively recruit peacemakers who could possibly establish a dialogue with all parties involved (the alternative is to sit around and watch Condoleeza Rice represent our best hope, and I’d just as soon sit around waiting for the Kansas City Royals to win the World Series). I’m glad that the U.S.A. and France have managed to draft a resolution for the United Nations to vote on, but the work these diplomats are doing is utterly tactical. It’s an important immediate step, but it lacks the kind of moral inspiration that can move people as well as governments, and thus it only addresses the symptoms of war rather than the root causes.

As I’ve written about elsewhere, I am an ethnic Jew but have been a religious Buddhist since I was a teenager (which was a long time ago). I tend to think of the Jewish, Christian and Islamic religions as more similar than different, and I think of the wonderful traditions of eastern religion (not only Buddhism but also Hinduism and other great intellectual legacies from India, China, Japan, Korea, Southeast Asia and Tibet) as a rich source of alternative thought. This is a theme I’d like to develop over time on this website, and I’d like to begin today by presenting a few relevant eastern-themed links.

• Deepak Chopra’a Where is Peace in a Time of War recently appeared on The Huffington Post. Chopra is part of a small group that runs IntentBlog, a modest site well worth visiting.

• You may have caught some episodes of Bill Moyers’ Faith and Reason, a PBS series featuring exploratory conversations about religion with various international writers. The episode featuring Pema Chodron is fascinating. Chodron, a Buddhist nun, emphasizes the concept of Buddhism not as an extreme choice but as a “middle path” for a wholesome life. Her prescription for balance and realism strikes me as very useful in the current world climate.

• The Sprout is a good article by Gudo Nishijima of Dogen Sangha.

I hope I won’t seem impatient if I express a wish that well-known Buddhist institutions and leaders would play a more active role in current worldwide dialogue, not because they are obliged to but because their help might make a big difference. I am surprised that this isn’t obvious to those I am addressing.

For example, I understand that Tricycle is a magazine and not a blog or a news source, but I am disappointed to visit their site and see very little discussion of the current situation in the Middle East. I am sure this represents a missed opportunity.

And, I complained last week that the Dalai Lama does not seem to be actively offering his involvement at this time either. I googled his name and all I came up with is the upcoming Peace Jam in Tennessee. Is this the best he can do? I would like to call on the various religious leaders of the world to please consider what they can offer in terms of dialogue and mediation right now. Much is at stake, and wisdom is in short supply. Maybe we need less jamming, and more peace.

Dear Mel Gibson:

Please stop talking about Jews. Despite what you may have heard, Jews are not actually responsible for all the wars in the world. We do seem to often play a starring role, in fact, and while I assure you, Mr. Gibson, that we are very pleased about this and that it’s all part of a big conspiracy, the truth is that JEWS WOULD LIKE TO STOP BEING IN WARS. Can you comprehend that? On behalf of all my people, Mel Gibson, I assure you that we would like to stop being in wars.

Where are you from, Mel Gibson? Oh, got it — Australia, by way of Malibu. Yeah, I’m sure you know a lot about the real experience of war and racism and ethnic hatred. Go back to Moonshadow and have another margarita, asswipe.

There’s the dialogue with Jews you asked for.

Dear The Rest of the World:

Please stop talking about Jews. You may find this hard to believe, but Jews are just regular people. Really. Just regular people. Why is this so hard for everybody to believe? Why can nobody talk about the horrible war in the Middle East without whispering or making faces about “those Jews”? Why are Muslim schools and mosques still teaching children that Jews are mystically demonic? Can we please discuss this war without bringing in ancient mythology, and see if maybe we can’t come to some kind of resolution that way?

Fuck nations, and fuck religions. Israel is a place filled with people, Lebanon is a place filled with people, Palestine is a place filled with People, Iran is a place filled with people, North Korea is a place filled with people.

Everybody: can you please start getting over the fact that Jews exist in the world? And can we all please resolve to settle our differences with honor and find a way to peace, like now?

Sincerely,

Levi Asher
Queens, New York

This is the last of a quick seven-piece series on a basic question: we all say we hate war and violence and injustice, so who among us are doing anything about it? I decided to approach this question by looking at those who hold several key roles around the world, grouped not by nationality or religion but by function. Here’s what we looked at:

• Politicians

• Religious leaders

• The United Nations

• Independent Activist Organizations

• Writers, Artists and Musicians

• Theoreticians and Academics

I’d like to conclude with the group I feel closest to: journalists and bloggers (I’m really not interested in discussing the differences between journalists and bloggers, which is probably an overplayed topic). I think we’ve got a pretty lively public dialogue going on here in the USA. We’ve got loud voices like Michael Moore, Bill O’Reilly, Jon Stewart, Ann Coulter. I disagree with at least half of them all the time, and all of them probably half the time — but in the end I’ll just say I’m glad they’re all around to keep the dialogue jumping (as annoying as Bill O’Reilly is).

But there is no shared dialogue on a global level. Over here, we read our over-here newspapers that show upsetting pictures of casualties in Israel and don’t show upsetting pictures of casualties in Lebanon. Over there, they read their over-there newspapers that show upsetting pictures of casualties in Lebanon and don’t show upsetting pictures of casualties in Israel. Oh yeah, and both sides think it’s shocking how the other side doesn’t show photos of their casualties, and never notice that they do the same thing. We need better dialogue between nations, between religions, between languages. I wish some of our proud superstar journalists and supposedly innovative media executives would figure out ways to make this happen.

This is an exciting time to practice journalism, due not only to advances in digital video and networked communications but also to a new level of confidence and bravery among both amateur and professional journalists. I have no doubt that this trend will continue, and I can only hope that TheCherryOrchard.org will find ways to contribute to this trend.