The Chevalier de la Barre, 2/22/2024: Appease the genociders and pass them more ammunition: Say it ain’t so, Joe

by Paul Ben-Itzak
Copyright 2024 Paul Ben-Itzak

“I’m an American doctor who went to Gaza; what I saw wasn’t war, it was annihilation.”

— Dr. Irfan Galaria, writing in the Los Angeles Times

Late last week, as the world was learning of the discovery of the body of a five-year-old Palestinian girl in a car entoured by the bodies of five relatives, several meters from the lifeless bodies of the two Red Crescent paramedics dispatched, with Israeli approval, to rescue her, all apparently killed by Israeli shelling and bombing, and less than two weeks after the world heard the girl’s 15-year-old cousin pleading with a Red Crescent dispatcher to send help as an Israeli tank bore down on the car until the girl screamed amidst the rat-a-tat-tat of Israeli gunfire followed by a harrowing silence as well as the dispatcher’s subsequent conversation with 5-year-old Hind as she pleaded for three hours for help to come, an overwhelming majority of 77 United States Senators including all but two Democrats and Independent Senator Bernie Sanders voted to send Israel $14 million more worth of arms, effectively enabling a rogue state which has already killed nearly 30,000 Palestinians, most of them civilians including at least 12,000 children — 5,000 since the International Court of Justice ordered it to stop on January 26 and not counting 6,000 buried under the rubble of buildings leveled by Israel — to keep on killing with effective impunity. (Indeed, the mainstream media, at least here in France, has devoted more air time over the past week to playing Where’s Navalny’s body? than it has over the past 130 days interrogating the fate of those 6,000 civilians. And the one public radio report on Israel’s assassination of Hind and her relatives practically made it sound like they were just caught amidst the tank fire, victims of a perpetrator-less tragedy rather than having been targeted as all the evidence suggests.) And Tuesday, just days after the Israeli army besieged, bombed the fourth floor of, forcibly evacuated, kidnapped many of the medical staff of, and cut electricity at the largest hospital in Southern Gaza thus causing between two and eight Intensive Care Unit patients to suffocate to death when their oxygen supply was cut off, and with one of six Palestinian children starving to death and 2.2 million people facing imminent famine according to the World Health Organization, Joe Biden once again vetoed a United Nations Security Council resolution that would have ordered an immediate cease-fire, stopped the carnage, and let substantive humanitarian aid in.

Now, before we go on, I want to ask you to just stop, close your eyes, make them the eyes of a 5-year-old child trapped in a car with the dead bodies of five relatives including her 15-year-old cousin, and imagine what it is like staring at the monstrous machine eyes of their assailant, a tank intent on killing you. I don’t know about you, but when I was five years old, my mother was walking me to Alvarado Elementary School in San Francisco’s Noe Valley, the face of authority was not a tank firing bullets at me and my family, it was Miss Stettner, in her high boots and with her long black hair and Karen Valentine dimples, drawing pictures and forming letters on a blackboard and opening my mind up as her smile held me mesmerized, and I still had 57 years of education and teacher crushes ahead of me. And unlike the Palestinian boy who turned up at a Gaza hospital recently with enough of his leg blown away that you could see the bones after Israel bombed the school with UNITED NATIONS written on it where his family had taken refuge thinking they’d be safe, killing the rest of his family as the boy recounted to the American plastic surgeon who tried to treat him (sterile instruments and instruments period are at a minimum at Gaza’s few remaining functional hospitals, with Israel blocking all but a trickle of deliveries of medical and food supplies; the doctor, interviewed on Democracy Now, said he witnessed hundreds of trucks lined up on the Egyptian side of the Rafa border waiting to get in), when I was 14, I was insulting my own nose as Cyrano and wooing Naomi Woolf’s Roxanne in a drama class at Hoover Junior High School. When I was little more than 15, the age of Hind’s sister before Israel nipped her life out as it was budding, I was not screaming as faceless Jewish soldiers were firing real bullets at me determined to kill me until I could scream no more, I was offstage with the rest of the cast of “The Diary of Anne Frank,” crying over our imagined deaths at the hands of an imaginary Gestapo as the final scene — Otto Frank returning to the Secret Annex after the war to discover his daughter’s journal so that he could share its lessons with the world — played out, little imagining that 46 years later the roles would be reversed, with Jewish soldiers hunting down and killing in their homes, their schools, their hospitals, their mosques and their churches another Semitic people, thus crapping on Anne Frank’s most important legacy: Never again and putting to the test her most enduring precept: “In spite of everything, I still believe that people are good at heart.”

Even for those of us who have observed Israel’s arrogant comportment with the Palestinians subject to its rule and ongoing defiance of international law over the years, particularly in Gaza (where this is not the first time it has killed civilians) and to a lesser extent in the West Bank which like Gaza it has illegally occupied for 57 years, Israel’s vicious, merciless, genocidal acts — by the evidence, those doing the killing and those directing them do not see Palestinians, even children, as human beings — over the past four months, as it over-avenges Hamas’s equally (in degree and dehumanizing optic if not in scale) vicious and inhuman massacre of 1200 people and kidnapping of more than 200 surpasses what History has shown us Man is capable of doing to his fellow man, at least since 1945, as Israel continues to bank on and abuse the latitude accorded it in the United States and Europe and among many Jews because of the last Holocaust to perpetrate another genocide.

Because I have been watching this, watching Israel’s human rights abuses, watching the growth of an Apartheid state which treats people as lesser citizens and human beings because of their race, watching its bombing of civilians in Gaza and Lebanon for 18 years, I have long been liberated from the blinders which have made so many Jews refuse to see — to believe — what Israel has become because it is a Jewish state or because they feel we need a Jewish State to protect us from the next Holocaust, refuse to believe the next genocide could be generated by an allegedly Jewish state. In this respect I am not disillusioned that a “Jewish” state could do this because I stopped believing in the intrinsic morality of such a state just because it lays claim to that appellation a long time ago.

I am, however, disillusioned by Joe Biden, who has singularly (well, not so singularly as all that; he had a little help from his secretary of state and those Democratic and Republican senators who voted to keep the bombs coming) destroyed any residue of the belief I once had in the ability and inkling of my country, globally, to be a force for good, a moral beacon. (There are too many good Americans, including Palestinian and Jewish Americans — as there are Israelis, including journalists, members of parliament, and conscientiously objecting soldiers, and of course Palestinians — trying to counter their president’s effective enabling of genocide for me not to believe in our individual power to still do good.)

For despite Anita Hill, despite his approval as a senator of George Bush’s illegal and bloody invasion of Iraq, until he continued sending arms to Israel in the face of this imminent and now in process genocide and blocking any efforts to stop this carnage, I had still believed that Joe Biden was essentially a decent man, a confirmed and sincere anti-racist who cared as much about Black and Brown (including Arab) lives as he does about white (Ukrainian) lives. And despite Iraq, despite Vietnam, despite Cambodia, despite Chili, despite Iran (where we instigated the overthrow of a democratically elected government in the 1950s), despite Kissinger and all the war crimes in which he implicated us, I still believed that my country could be a moral beacon for the world.

But my country’s conduct here, its continued and persistent effective fueling of Israel’s genocide in Gaza and in the face of Israel’s deliberate enfeebling of hospitals (another tool of genocide) and killing of medical workers and journalists, our continued blocking of efforts by the rest of the world to stop the killing and start substantially funneling in the humanitarian aid, our increasingly brazen cynicism — State Department spokesman Matt Miller telling reporters that the U.S. had confidence in an Israeli investigation of 5-year-old Hind’s killing; if I had a shekel for every time Israel announced it was investigating itself for killing civilians, including Palestinian-American journalists killed by Israeli snipers despite being clearly identified as Press and American defenders of Palestinian homes being leveled by Israeli tractors, and never followed through, I’d be able to found my own Jewish state — for me my country’s ongoing support of this rogue state despite its genocidal rampage is worse than a tragedy. It’s a moral abdication.

And it’s appeasement. It’s appeasement of a genocidal state which, unlike even Germany, which by setting up the model concentration camp of Theresienstadt, where Jews were allowed to create an orchestra and which the Red Cross was invited to tour (Israel, by contrast, is killing Red Crescent workers, 14 to date according to a spokesman for the organization, as well 100 UNRWA employees according to UNRWA), at least indicated it knew that what it was doing would be looked at as wrong by other nations and tried to gloss it over by presenting a counter-image, however false, Israel — which as opposed to conjuring Theresienstadt has resurrected the Warsaw Ghetto, as Masha Gessen has pointed out — doesn’t seem to care what the rest of the world thinks of its atrocities, a law upon itself, here enabled by the sheriff.

As to why that sheriff is allowing Israel to get away with it, if Joe Biden and those 77 senators thinks it’s because if they cut off Israel’s arms supplies and stopped blocking UN efforts to impose a cease-fire and let substantial humanitarian aid in they’d lose the Jewish vote, they haven’t been paying attention to what’s been going on on American college campuses, and they must think very little of our own moral values, to believe that we would countenance a genocide because this time around the genociders happen to be wearing Mogen Davids on their tanks.

The Chevalier de la Barre, 2/13/2024: Non, Monsieur Finkielkraut, c’est votre argument qui est ‘absurd’ / No, Mr. Finkielkraut, it’s your argument supporting that Israel is not committing genocide which is “absurd”

by Paul Ben-Itzak
Copyright 2024 Paul Ben-Itzak

Imagine that Fox News host Sean Hannity was elected to the American Academy of Arts and Letters, the presumably smartest people in the land decreeing that he was fit to be one of them, a person with a certain level of intelligence who could be counted on to exercise it responsibly and whose opinions were supported by a modicum of reason, learning, considered contemplation and reflection, and studied meditation.

Imagine that instead of being confined to the Trumpian universe of Fox “News,” Mr. Hannity was accorded a primetime, Saturday morning perch on National Public Radio on which to parade his particular reading of the facts.

Imagine that instead of being regarded as (or relegated to being) a Fox News host, he was typically described by everyone else in the mainstream media as an accredited Philosopher (by virtue of having a degree in the subject), the implication being that his arguments, whether one agreed with them or not and no matter how ludicrous, were at least supported by a minimum of scholarly (and rigorous) reason; of scientific method.

Add the local nuance of a child of genocide survivors who apparently doesn’t know how to recognize a genocide when he sees one, and you have Alain Finkielkraut, a member of the venerated Academy Francaise (where his predecessors include Anatole France, Paul Valery, and Jean Cocteau) who, on his France Culture public radio program “Repliques” Saturday, implicitly labeled findings by the International Court of Justice of the United Nations — the tribune charged with enforcing the 1948 Convention against Genocide (to which France, the U.S., and Israel are signatories) and the only court with the authority to do so — issued January 26 that Israel is plausibly committing genocide in Gaza “absurd” because Israel hands out flyers warning Gazans to get out of town (my wording) and posts warnings on the Internet (regularly put out of commission by Israel) before it bombs their homes to smithereens (my wording again), continuing to bomb or shell them along the routes and in the places it has designated as safe (ditto).

(Important: I am not comparing either Mr. Hannity’s personality nor his views on other subjects with Mr. Finkielkraut’s. Rather, and in considering the latter’s extreme view and ludicrous argument to support it on this particular subject, I am comparing the relative places extreme views unsupported by any logic or fairness are given in the mainstream American media landscape and the French one, at least in this case. If anything, I am disappointed that someone with the academic pedigree of Mr. Finkielkraut (and with whose perspective on other subjects, notably in a recent emission on Pierre Bonnard, I sometimes agree) — a respectable pedigree which cannot be matched by that of Mr. Hannity — has adopted such an extreme position based on such a spurious argument, on this issue. Mr. Finkielkraut’s previous equating of just about any and all criticism of Israel — including the non-violent Palestinian civil-society-lead movement to Boycott, Divest from, and Sanction Israel — with anti-Semitism is unfortunately not unique on either the France Culture or American mainstream media and political landscape.)

In other words, after implicitly granting himself the authority to supersede the only court mandated to decide whether acts Israel has committed in the process of killing more than 28,000 people over four months (since Hamas massacred 1200 people, the majority civilians, on October 7), the majority civilians including at least 11,500 children, constitute genocide, Mr. Finkielkraut not only dismisses the idea that one war crime, genocide, is taking place, he does so on the sole evidence of acts implemented (the flyers distributed by the Israeli army ordering evacuation) in the process of committing another war crime, forced displacement of a civilian population.

Why does this matter? Why do I care? Why don’t I just turn the radio off?

An internationally recognized tribune of judges from around the world, with principles, acting on judiciously prepared evidence presented by a country, South Africa, whose own principles derive in part from its frank confrontation with its own history of racial crimes, and after giving Israel an opportunity to defend itself, has declared that genocide is “plausibly” taking place now, and ordered the incriminated party to stop, now, an order other signatories to the Convention against Genocide with the power to do so are obligated to enforce (by, for example, cutting off arms shipments to Israel). We have the chance to do now what we claim we were not able to do before, in Europe as in Rwanda, and stop the genocide before it takes any more lives and plants any more seeds of future death, sickness, suffering, and irredeemable hate.

For this to happen, for the blood-letting and orphaning and amputating of children without anesthetic and hate-sowing and destruction and starvation to stop, for the famine to be headed off before it’s too late, citizens need to obligate their governments to act. (Hamas also needs to release the more than 100 remaining hostages, and to be brought to account for its mass murders of nearly 1200 people on October 7.) For that to happen, citizens need to be well-informed. This is largely not happening (or if you prefer, rarely happening, although lately more eye-witness testimony from Gaza seems to be filtering through) on France Culture, a public radio chain, where the court’s decision — where its declaration that genocide is plausibly taking place — continues to be downplayed, deformed, downgraded, distorted, and, now, denigrated.

Including, now, by public intellectuals. (Or to be precise — and not tarnish everyone with the same brush — at least one very prominent public intellectual, perhaps the most prominent public intellectual in France today.) The exact same class of people on whom France (and the world) has always been able to depend to lead it out of the moral abyss and away from political peril, with philosophers like Albert Camus risking their lives to sneak back into Occupied France with a false passport to edit an underground newspaper, Combat. With poets like Victor Hugo going into exile for 20 years so that they could continue to attack, in print, the “petit king,” Napoleon III, from abroad. With novelists and art critics like Emile Zola possibly being murdered because he defended Captain Dreyfus and excoriated the army brass which had railroaded this patriotic Jewish veteran into several years of imprisonment on Devil’s Island, falsely treating him as a traitor. And with the General, Charles de Gaulle, who was no slouch in the brain department, refusing France’s surrender in 1940 and leading its Resistance to genocidal fascism.

From this rich tradition (a legacy which also includes Voltaire, thanks to whom we know about this column’s namesake, the pre-Revolutionary 19-year-old whose tongue and arms were cut off before he was burned at the stake after refusing to take his cap off before and chanting impudent ditties at a passing parade of religious notables), we have devolved into a public intellectual who abuses his pulpit to cast doubt on legitimate, evidentiary supported charges of an ongoing genocide.

(I am not saying there are not other public intellectuals in France who are doing the inverse, rigorously examining the possibility of a genocide taking place in Gaza. There are, among them Didier Fassin, a professor at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton and at the College de France, who explored the question for the online journal AOC on October 31, concluding, “At a time when the majority of Western governments continue to talk about ‘Israel’s right to defend itself,’ without imposing any but rhetorical limits [on Israel] and without imagining a similar right for Palestinians, there is in effect an historic responsibility to prevent what could become the first genocide of the 21st century.” And Professor Fassin’s College de France colleagues Henry Laurens, Francois Heran, and Antoine Lilti, if they have not directly addressed the current situation, have provided vital historical, moral, and philosophical context in their recent courses. But these public intellectuals are not getting the attention on France Culture that Mr. Finkielkraut’s efforts to decredibilize the court’s findings with specious arguments are.)

Where do I, an American expatriate, get off criticizing a member of the Academy Francaise and a French public radio chain?

As a journalist, I have a stake in responsible journalism.

As a Jew, it ashames me when a prominent Jew, a presumed intellectual, goes on the air and uses his power, the power of the air-waves and the power of the word, to mask a genocide with such a specious, almost throw-away argument, which can effectively be resumed as suggesting that because Israel handed out flyers (as a tool to implement one war crime — my words and characterization, not Mr. Finkielkraut’s) it is not guilty of another war crime.

And as someone who has believed since he was 16 and read Camus’s “The Plague” for the first time in the French ideal that writers can be a liberating force, it is a grand deception — in both the American and French senses of that word — to see a French public intellectual using his prominent and influential pulpit and exploiting his facility with language (the surveillance of whose proper and correct usage is the Academy Francaise’s most fundamental purview) in a way that results (even if unintentionally) in providing intellectual cover for war crimes.

The Chevalier de la Barre, 2/9/2024: The sounds of silence

by Paul Ben-Itzak
Copyright 2024 Paul Ben-Itzak

“As the dead rose to 100 in my family, to 15,000 children all across Gaza, to 30,000 civilians, as I saw the famine happen, I kept looking for evidence that our government actually cares about the lives of my family, and I saw none. I kept waiting for a cease-fire that Secretary Blinken has the ability to do and he refused to do it. I kept waiting for a U.N. cease-fire resolution to call for a ceasefire, which the U.S. continued to veto. I kept waiting for something and all I saw was the opposite. I saw our U.S. strategic Middle-Eastern military reserve being used to replenish the Israeli ammunitions for this genocide. I saw cruelly… the withdrawal of funding for the United Nations agency that was supplying humanitarian assistance to over two million people going through famine. I wrote… to Secretary Blinken because I wanted him to see Palestinians as human beings.”

— Dr. Tariq Haddad, Palestinian-American leader who refused to meet with Secretary of State Antony Blinken last week in protest of the Biden administration’s ongoing support of Israel’s bombardment of Gaza, interviewed Monday on Democracy Now

In memory of Morris Hertzon and Edward Winer — and for the Jewish and Palestinian children of today and tomorrow. That we teach them the compassion which is our fundamental value — and legacy.

If you want to know what the worse anti-Semitic massacre of the 21st century sounds like, as the government of the United States defies an international court order to stop the genocide and impedes the efforts of the rest of the World to do so and save the dignity of humanity in the face of Israeli inhumanity, you need to listen to 15-year-old Layan Hamadeh pleading for help from a Red Crescent dispatcher as an Israeli tank bears down on her family’s car and its seven civilian occupants in Gaza City on Monday, January 29 (as broadcast February 2 on Democracy Now). You need to hear the compassionate emergency dispatcher — as a Jewish state abandons the value of compassion which is a core Jewish value — listening, helpless, as Layan’s call is interrupted by the girl’s screaming and the sound of Israeli soldiers shelling the car from the sanctuary of an armored tank before the line goes silent; Layan and five other members of her family would be killed by the Israeli tank fire. The Red Crescent is still searching for Layan’s relative Hind, a six-year-old girl, and two health workers.

Layan Hamadeh: “Hello?”

Red Crescent dispatcher: “Hello, dear?”

Layan Hamadeh: “They are shooting at us.”

Red Crescent dispatcher: “Hello?”

Layan Hamadeh: “They are shooting at us. The tank is next to me.”

Red Crescent dispatcher: “Are you hiding?”

Layan Hamadeh: “Yes, in the car. We’re next to the tank.”

Red Crescent dispatcher: “Are you inside the car?”

Layan Hamadeh: [screaming]

Red Crescent dispatcher: “Hello? Hello?”

After the rest of her family was killed, 6-year-old Hind “remained trapped in the car as emergency workers tried to reach her,” Democracy Now reported. Emergency dispatcher Rana al-Faqeh, who spent several hours on the phone with the girl trying to reassure her, recounted:

“It is a painful experience when you hear her voice, which was trembling, sad, and at the same time she had hope that someone would save her. But we were helpless. We felt that we were paralyzed, because we were thinking about the situation she was in. She was trapped inside a car with six bodies of martyrs, audio of tanks and aircraft firing. When the tank came close to her, she was screaming and crying. The worst minute was when she said the tank got closer, and then the phone cut. At this moment, I thought the tank climbed on the car. At this moment, I started to cry, and I was trying to be strong.”

This is what terrorism and its spiraling effects — on the victims and the helpless witnesses — sounds like.

This is the abysmal level to which the allegedly Jewish state of Israel has lowered civilization, debasing our religion and culture with it. A tank firing on children. When you see their faces in front of you, you cannot claim this is “collateral damage.”

This is how genocidal killers behave. Assassinating by tank fire, at close range, a family of six trapped in a car, whose sole crime is their race, is not an act of self-defense; there were no Hamas fighters in that car, like there were no Hamas fighters among the at least 11,500 children among the more than 28,000 Gazans Israel has killed since Hamas massacred 1200 Israeli and other foreign nationals, of all ages, on October 7, in the second-worse anti-Semitic massacre of this century. (The figures for those killed in Gaza are much higher if you include the more than 6,000 who remain buried beneath the rubble of buildings Israel has leveled, more than half of those in Gaza, without counting all those who will suffer and die premature deaths in the coming years because Israel has also cut off medical supplies and bombed hospitals, leaving doctors to amputate because they have no other choice, often without anesthetic, unable to treat those with chronic diseases and to choose who to save and who not to, because there are too many wounded and there is not enough medicine, and aggravating the chronic diseases of others.)

In a way this act, which echoes thousands like it perpetrated by Israel over the past four months and in four previous wars on Gaza (as well as one war perpetrated on Lebanon) prior to October 7, is more horrifying in its moral implications than would be a mere terrorist act, whose intention is to terrorize human beings, including by killing and torturing them. These people — the six members of this Palestinian family killed by Israel — like hundreds of other entire families and tens of thousands of other Palestinians over the past four months, were exterminated as if they were sub-humans. As if they were rats. (This isn’t wanton or even indiscriminate killing; in the way it is executed it is deliberate and targeted annihilation of what the perpetrator looks at as a pest.) Because when you kill an unarmed family of civilians like this in their car while looking them in the eyes from the relative safety of your tank, when you shoot the limbs off children (10 per day are losing one or both legs under Israeli fire) and wipe out whole families in their homes and cars, in hospitals and schools, in refugee centers, mosques, and churches, a prerequisite of this act of inhumanity is that the victims do not meet the threshold of being considered human. Of deserving compassion. Of meriting empathy. This is not accidental, it is policy, its lethal damage not collateral but intended, Israel’s defense minister having signaled to his troops before they marched off to war how little currency they should place on Palestinian lives — thus giving up his right to call himself a Jew, because compassion is a fundamental Jewish value — by publicly likening all Gaza residents to animals. And the obscenely named Monsieur Gallant did not mean domestic animals. When soldiers protected by tank armor deliberately fire at close range on a car carrying children, when they fire on naked men brandishing white flags, on schools, hospitals, refugee camps, mosques, and churches, they not only are not seeing their victims as human, they aren’t even seeing them as cats or dogs, they are seeing them as rats, a nuisance, a pestilence to be exterminated, regardless of their gender, age, or profession.

The same analysis could and does apply to Hamas’s pitiless massacre of October 7. But the crucial difference here (I don’t mean in the gravity or degree of criminality, I mean in the way I am regarding or taking the two equally horrible massacres) — and this is not an excuse, as I have previously written with this massacre the murderers of Hamas christened themselves the Palestine chapter of D’esh; it is just to explain why I may seem to take the genocide being perpetrated by Israel on Palestinians more personally than the massacre perpetrated by Hamas on Israelis — is that whereas the October 7 massacre was carried out by a criminal enterprise, the massacres that Israel has been committing in the four months since (as well as the killings it was committing before) are being perpetrated by a State, by a self-described Jewish state, including with weapons supplied by another State, an American State, and I as a Jew and an American need to reckon with this; I will leave Palestinians to reckon with the moral consequences of the Hamas massacre committed in their name, by their government (which the 11,500 children did not elect and cannot be held to account for) in Gaza. (As I will leave so-called reporters like the Intercept’s Jeremy Scahill to reckon with the immoral relativity of victim comparison, when they contend, as Mr. Scahill did Wednesday on Democracy Now, that Hamas killed but one baby, and that that baby was shot while being cradled in its mother’s arms, as if this somehow makes Hamas less culpable and exonerates them from being baby-killers. Shame on you, Mr. Scahill, for this statement, for debasing the profession of journalism with your moral relativity, and for compromising legitimate opposition to Israel’s actions in Gaza. This is not about Israeli pain versus Palestinian pain. It is about calling out lack of compassion no matter which camp exercises it by wielding weapons of war against innocents.) We as Jews and Americans were supposed to be better than this (I don’t mean better than Palestinians, I mean better than compassion-less massacrerers and their enablers.) We Jews were — we are — a people which prizes compassion and empathy, even among our most religiously fundamentalist elements. (I’ll get to that.) We Americans were supposed to wield a moral compass for everybody else to follow. (You call this being historically naive or nationalistically arrogant; I call it being unremittingly idealist, another American quality; we are essentially good people.) And our leader, Joe Biden, was supposed to be an anti-racist. But when Mr. Biden does not react the same way to the killing of (brown) Palestinians by (white, Jewish) Israelis as he does to the killing of (white) Ukrainians (by the eternal Russian ogre), in the first case sending more bombs to the perpetrators of these savage acts enabling them to keep on killing when being a signatory to the Convention against Genocide obligates the United States to stop sending arms to Israel to enforce the International Court of Justice’s January 26 order to Israel that it prevent and punish genocide, as well as blocking efforts to impose the cease-fire necessary to head off a famine, the intentional provoking of which as Israel is doing by cutting off or restricting food, water, and fuel or simply attacking the few aid convoys it lets into Gaza constituting another war crime, and suspending funding to the lead agency trying to step into the breach and clean up our mess based on unproven Israeli charges against that agency, while in the second (Ukraine) sending defensive weapons to the victims, to this inhumanity and this indifference to inhumanity Mr. Biden has added the ugly patina of racism.

Since January 26, when the International Court of Justice of the United Nations ruled that South Africa’s claims that Israel was committing genocide on the people of Gaza are “plausible” and ordered Israel to take measures to prevent and punish genocidal acts and to let substantive humanitarian aid in for the population of 2.3 million Israel has been besieging and deliberately starving (harkening back to feudal times) for four months, Israel has killed 3,000 more people according to the Gaza health ministry, including Layan Hamadeh and her family. Those are 3,000 deaths which might have been avoided if the United States had met its own obligations under international law and cut off arms supplies to Israel to enforce the ICJ’s ruling, given that Israel is intent on ignoring it. In recent days Israel has continued firing on residential areas, elementary schools, hospitals, and aid distribution sites. On Monday, Israel destroyed the Palestinian Red Crescent’s headquarters in Northern Gaza and attacked a U.N. aid convoy, the third time it has done so in the North of Gaza, according to an U.N.R.W.A. spokesperson.

I recently listened to the concluding lecture of Francois Heran’s College de France fall course on Colonialism and Immigration. Heran reiterated that the Colonialist notion of a manifest “right to conquest” was quickly dispatched by Jean-Jacques Rousseau more than 200 years ago, only to be replaced by the justification that the aim of Colonialism was not to conquer but to civilize supposedly savage peoples. My ears perked up when Heran reminded his audience that in their campaigns of conquest, the colonizers often resorted to tactics like extermination and forced starvation.

For as much as Israel for 75 years and particularly since 1967, when it illegally occupied the West Bank and Gaza, has fit the definition of a colonizer (devolving in recent years, according to Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, and both Israeli and Palestinian human rights organizations, into an Apartheid state), by the rabid manner of its killing of civilians in its war on Gaza — for which the argument that “Israel has the right to defend itself” flies out the window when one understands that Israel’s war on Gaza and on Palestinians throughout the Occupied Territories started long before October 7, with Israel killing 4,000 Palestinians in four previous wars on Gaza, according to the United Nations, sniper-killing peaceful demonstrators protesting on the other side of its illegally constructed Gaza wall in 2019 including a 20-year-old female medic, and killing more than 200 Palestinians in the Occupied West Bank before October 7 this year and more than 360 since according to the U.N., including 94 children — by the rabid manner of its killing of Palestinians and in using starvation as a weapon of war Israel’s siege of Gaza resembles not so much recrudescent Colonialism as reincarnated Crusaderism.

So why aren’t we stopping it?

After all, we (or our ancestors) claim we didn’t stop the Holocaust because we didn’t know about it, but this time we do.

Well, we have the capability to know about it — depending on where we seek our information.

I know about it, because I listen to Democracy Now, which gives me access to many more sources (including sources I don’t agree with and say so, in print), such as al Jazeera and the testimony of witnesses and scholars, activists and experts, among them Israeli activists, journalists, Knesset members, war resisters, and activists, and Holocaust survivors and artists; because I have been monitoring and writing about Israel and Palestine for 45 years; because I have interviewed and written about artists in Gaza; because I have read widely and viewed films about the subject; because I studied with Fouad Ajami at Princeton during the fall of 1979, a pivotal period in the Middle East, and audited Henry Laurens’s course on the build up to the 1967 war last fall at the College de France in Paris; and because I have worked with and supported (full disclosure) the Palestinian civil society-led movement to Boycott, Divest from, and Sanction Israel, published articles supporting BDS and the academic and cultural boycott of Israel, including by BDS co-founder Omar Barghouti; and participated in BDS demonstrations in New York, as well as demonstrations against Israel’s 2006 invasion of Lebanon in Paris.

If, however, my only source of information was public radio here in France (where the report recorded and shared above like most others of its nature are nowhere to be heard, or when they are heard, they are usually presented as author-less suffering with no human integer, as if created by a natural catastrophe and not human malfeasance), specifically middle-brow chain France Culture and to a lesser extent low-brow chain France Inter (they share the same correspondents, but France Inter tends to interview more guests with Palestinian, critical Israeli, or eye-witness perspectives), here’s what I might think (once again, I’m not trying to pick on the French mainstream media, by which I mean strictly public radio, this is where I live and this the public radio I have access to; it may be the same where you are, with both CNN and MSNBC apparently having dismissed journalists they considered were too critical of Israel):

Except for a vague notion that the Palestinians have a right to a State and that the Israelis are building a lot of colonies in the West Bank, I would think that the Israel-Palestine “conflict” began October 7, 2023.

I would think that the current war is not a war by Israel being conducted on Gaza, but a war between Israel and Hamas; never mind that most of Israel’s 27,500 victims to date are civilians, 70 percent women and children.

I would think that if you criticize Israel — not to mention if you advocate boycotting, divesting from, and sanctioning Israel — you are an anti-Semite. (Even if you are a Semite.)

I would think that anti-Semitism is exploding in France, because the self-appointed representative council of Jewish organizations in France, a longtime supporter of the extremist Netanyahu government, says it is, no doubt including in its calculations (see above) those who simply criticize Israel, claims rarely if ever challenged by France Culture.

I would think that the many brave students demonstrating for the rights of Palestinians and against Israeli genocide and apartheid on campuses across the United States (several of whom were recently sprayed by other students, at Columbia, with something called “skunk juice,” with at least six hospitalized), and against Israeli genocide and apartheid, including many Jewish students, aren’t doing so because they don’t like genocide and apartheid but because they are anti-Semites and support Hamas. I wouldn’t know that some of the organizations and many of the students doing the protesting are Jewish, and that at least one of these organizations, Jewish Voice for Peace, has been banned or at least suspended on Ivy League campuses like Columbia.

I would think that the Israeli army is the most ethical army in the world (actual quote from a guest on France Culture, left unchallenged by the host or the other guest, made November 19, after Israel had already killed 13,000 Gazans), which always calls up its victims and warns them before it bombs their homes to smithereens. (Ibid, except the qualitative of “smithereens.”)

I would think that the figures of the deaths inflicted by Israel on Gazans are not facts confirmed by the United Nations, they are claims made a radical Islamic organization, in other words the same people who brought you October 7, 2023, September 11, 2001, and January 7 and November 13, 2015 in France.

Unless — and this is a big unless, as this reporter has done yeoman’s work in trying to balance her employer’s otherwise transparently pro-Israel bias with her objective reports from Ramallah and the West Bank, including meaningful interviews with the Palestinians affected by the Occupant’s repression — unless I happened upon reports by Radio France’s erstwhile West Bank correspondent Alice Froussard, which offer the Palestinian perspective, I would think that Israeli army efforts, including lethal attacks involving invading and firing on refugee camps and destroying homes and targeting and killing individuals (including at point blank range in their hospital beds), to clamp down on opposition to Israel’s illegal occupation of the West Bank are ‘affrontations’ between two equal parties, as opposed to violent and lethal efforts to repress opposition to an illegal occupation.

I would think that Israeli army incursions into and attacks on worshippers in a mosque are not incursions, they also are ‘affrontations’. (Long gone the days when outraged then prime minister Jacques Chirac ordered armed Israeli soldiers who invaded a Jerusalem mosque he was visiting to “Get out of here,” in English.)

I would think that Jean-Luc Mélenchon and his Insoumis (Unsubmissive) party is anti-Semitic, the sole ‘evidence’ for this ongoing insinuation from some France Culture journalists, which pre-dates October 7, being that France’s leading Left-wing party is not afraid to criticize Israel and defend and march for the sanctity of Palestinian lives.

I would think that what was actually a preliminary ruling by the leading international court, a court officially tasked with enforcing the Convention Against Genocide, that Israel is plausibly committing genocide and binding orders by that court for Israel to stop was not a ruling accompanied by an enforceable order but a mere “accusation” (an accusation which the party plausibly perpetrating the genocide finds “scandalous”).

I’ve been talking so far about the news programs (where, most recently, Gaza has been conspicuous by its almost complete absence, particularly when you compare this to coverage of Russians doing the same thing to Ukrainians as Israel is doing to Palestinians, only with a lot less magnitude). As a public radio lifer — I was weaned on NPR, PBS, and Pacifica by my three parents and I even used to love France Culture and France Inter, until the latter dumbed down and the former intellectual’d down, including by cutting its daily broadcast of College de France lectures — I also look to public affairs programs to offer an intelligent, balanced analysis and debate on issues I care about. Hoping — like Charlie Brown who keeps believing Lucy won’t lift the football at the last second even though experience teaches him otherwise — to find this on this subject on three of France Culture’s four public affairs programs the week-end following the International Court of Justice’s ruling (I stopped listening to the fourth one, Christine Okrent’s “Foreign Affairs,” when the host started presenting the Paris director of the American Jewish Committee — a lobbying organization whose avowed mission is to get American Jews to make ‘aliya’ to Israel — as an expert on the Middle East and on American Jewish sentiment towards Israel, and described all American campus protests of Israel’s actions, including by Jewish students, as being “pro-Hamas”), I found:

** No mention of the Court’s provisional genocide ruling and orders to Israel to cut it out on any of the programs.

** Academy Francaise (!) member Alain Finkielkraut, who regularly equates criticism of Israel and support of BDS with anti-Semitism, and who has yet to speak about the Israeli massacres of civilians, using the platform of his Saturday morning “Repliques” program not to condemn the Israeli genocide (as one might expect a child of Holocaust survivors to do), but to inveigh (for the umpteenth time) against (American) “woke-ism,” the latest shibboleth of French neo-conservatives and neo-liberals, supplanting “political correctness” (as in “You’re just saying that to be politically correct”) as the intellectually lazy way to dismiss your opponents’ legitimate concerns about historical or contemporary racial or gender injustice as being driven by ideology rather than fact-based conviction, a convenient dodge which gets you out of actually having to address their arguments on the merits. This time, Finky (as French journalists sometimes fondly refer to him; I’m not trying to be pejorative) added a new — and stupefyingly anti-intellectual for a member of the Academy Francaise (where his predecessors include Anatole France, Paul Valery, and Jean Cocteau) — wrinkle, in one fell-swoop dismissing entire American university departments and research fields, by claiming that Women’s Studies, Gender Studies, Queer Studies, Transgender Studies, and even something he called “Fat Studies,” rather than being driven by legitimate research criteria are all “grievance”-driven.

** France Culture’s longtime Sunday public affairs program, “Esprit Public,” whose purview normally includes international news and which has a battery of foreign affairs experts including on the Middle East to draw upon, notably Bernard Badi (his like many of my name spellings gleaned from radio listening may be fershluganah), completely ignoring this leading court’s ruling on a genocide which includes the killing of more than 11,000 children (with Gazan mothers giving birth on top of piles of rubble), instead devoting the entire hour to debating France’s declining birth rate and president Emmanuel Macron’s exhorting French women to have more babies.

** Marc Weitzmann’s Sunday afternoon emission “Signs of the Times” ignoring the great big “PLAUSIBLE CLAIMS THAT GENOCIDE IS BEING COMMITTED HERE” billboard put up by the International Court of Justice two days before the broadcast (perhaps not a surprise as the Court’s ruling puts the lie to a previous claim made on Weizmann’s program, on November 19, at which point Israel had killed more than 13,000 Palestinians, and mentioned above, that Israel’s army is the most ethical army in the world and phones people up before it bombs their homes), and not saying a word about the Court ruling or the war and the ongoing genocide, instead spending the whole program debating protests by some poets over other poets’ nomination of a writer who has written prefaces for books by other allegedly neo-reactionary writers as the godfather of the upcoming Springtime of Poets festival. (In case you haven’t noticed: One neo-reactionary hosted current events show, one neo-liberal, and no liberals, the only France Culture talk show hosted by someone nominally on the Left being focused on sociological questions and having made only one passing reference to Gaza since October 7.)

This radio silence — this silence by two men (Mssrs Finkielkraut and Weitzmann) who present as having a conscience on public issues, and on a third program which pretends to address the main international issues of the week but ignored the main historic court action of the century that week — doesn’t just reflect poor journalistic choices. It reveals an appalling lack of compassion — of conscience. Or to cite the father (after Victor Hugo) of the modern French public intellectual, J’ACCUSE. Je vous accuse d’avoir manqué de la compassion pour les victimes d’une genocide qui saute aux yeux, au moins devant les yeux des ceux et celles who have eyes to see. As this appalling lack of compassion appears to be driven, perversely, at least in Monsieur Finkielkraut’s case, by an otherwise laudable (and understandable) identification with Jewish concerns, culture, and historic pain (which, unfortunately, in their minds or at least Monsieur Finkielkraut’s mind seems to translate as an apparent get out of war crimes jail free card for Israel, since of course no criticism of Israel is legitimate and any criticism of Israel is driven by anti-Semitism), and as they both have a commendable and appreciated fondness for Jewish-American writers (and a pride in historic Jewish culture, including American Jewish or my culture), I’d like to introduce Mssrs Finkielkraut and Weizmann to another Jewish-American novelist besides Phillip Roth, Mr. Finkielkraut’s “chou-chou”. Chaim Potok — Rabbi Chaim Potok to you, bub — may not be as neurotic as Phillip Roth, but he exudes and has poignantly depicted and vaunted a less dubious and more admirable (and, obviously, not exclusive to us!) Jewish (including American Hasidic Jewish) trait to which we should all aspire: Compassion.

I first read Potok’s popular best-seller “The Chosen” on a cross-country journey with my father, step-mother, and two younger brothers whose penultimate destination was Florida, and a visit with our maternal grandparents. I was 16 and, like my brothers, had never gotten the Jewish name-giving part of the ‘bris’ (circumcision being the medical part), our liberal parents leaving it to us to decide if we wanted one when we were older. Pouring, entranced, through Potok’s novel — about a friendship between a Conservative Jewish boy and a Hasidic boy in the Brooklyn of the 1950s — by campsite lantern-light as we coursed across America and headed towards my Papa Morris, I decided that I would like to have a Jewish name and wrote to Papa asking him if he could arrange it when we got to Miami Beach. Papa, being Papa (1970 Salesman of the Year for Schenley Liquors), convinced the younger rabbi of his congregation to get a Cliff Notes Bar-Mitzvah — I’d never had that either — thrown in to the bargain with the name-giving ceremony; instead of several years of Sunday school, all I needed to do was memorize a short Latinized version of the Hebrew prayer one had to recite to be Bar-Mitva’d and faster than you can say Alouicious Lowenstein I had my Jewish name: Netanel ben Yitzhak (Netanel, son of Yitzhak).

What “The Chosen” inspired in me was not religious fervor nor even so much a renewed pride in Jewish culture (the French don’t like to hear this, but American Jews view Judaism as not just a religion but a culture, voir an ethnicity; you can be an atheist and still be Jewish, and proud of it) but pride in a culture centered around not just the Book but books and learning in general, and study, and rigorous intellectual debate about verses and arguments provoked by the books. (It was also Papa who turned me on to my first adult novel, Herman Wouk’s “The City Boy,” nestled in his library overlooking the canal right next to Henny Youngman’s “I got a million of ’em!”) Never mind that for the protagonists of “The Chosen” — the two teenagers and their fathers, one a conservative (in the Jewish sense, which goes from Reform to Conservative to Orthodox to Hasidic to Meir Kahane) Jewish scholar and writer, the other an influential Hasidic rabbi — the books in question were the Torah and the Talmud, the passages heatedly debated by the rabbi, his son Danny, and Danny’s friend Reuven often involving obscure points of Halacha, or Jewish law, or what Rabbi X meant when he said Y, and what other texts might support or contradict that interpretation. This passionate investment in the primacy of books as intellectual stimuli, stores of knowledge, and guides for life, the joy of scholarship and being immersed for hours in books, and the vigorous discourse and debate they inspired had a resonance for me that went beyond biblical texts and the Word and applied to all words and books. Indeed, Danny’s passion and alacrity for learning naturally takes him beyond Jewish books and into seeking out and devouring whole tomes on general subjects like philosophy, science, history and mathematics, for which the other boy’s father, accidentally encountered in a public library, secretly offers him guidance in the form of reading tips.

Now, you might imagine that once the Hasidic rabbi inevitably discovers his son’s secret passion for secular learning, all hell would break loose. But, and as I was reminded when I recently re-read “The Chosen” for the first time in 45 years (after finding a copy in the free book exchange box of my Medieval French village with the all-night church bells; go figure), that his son — his scion, the boy being destined and groomed to succeed him as the ‘tzadik’ of his community — will be corrupted by non-religious learning is not the rabbi’s greatest fear. His main worry is that the boy’s hunger for learning and knowledge has been that of a machine, not accompanied by a concomitant understanding of the need to have compassion, essential for a tzadik if he is to lead and guide his community. It is to remedy this — in the hopes of provoking some feeling in his son — that the rabbi, since Danny was a tyke first exhibited this tendency, this apparent lack of compassion, has taken the drastic step of not speaking to his son outside of their formal study and debate of the religious texts. Deprived of any apparent compassion, or sentiment, from his father, the rabbi hopes, his son will developed some compassion of his own. So when the rabbi discovers the college acceptance letters for his son, the first step he takes is not to throw the letters away to thwart his son’s plans, but to, finally, explain to him — through the medium of Reuven, the other boy, who he asks to be present for the conversation (“Tell my son,” etc.) — that this is the reason he has not spoken to his son for years outside of their study sessions, as painful as this was: To try to spur some compassion in him. Faced with the fact that his son — his ‘chosen’ successor — has decided to reject his pre-destined place on the pulpit and to go out into the world, and knowing that he might well decline to succeed his father in the podium of the shul but he cannot evade his destiny to be a tzadik, what’s most important to the rabbi is not retaining his son or holding him back from integrating the world, but doing his best to make sure that he sends his boy out into the world with this compassion.

This is not just what it means to be a tzadik. This is what it should mean to be a Jew. (Again, I don’t claim that we have exclusivity on this quality.)

To have — and demonstrate — compassion for the Other.

(Or, to quote Jack Lemmon in “The Apartment,” “to be a mensch.”)

Including for the most Orthodox, or “extremist,” of Jews — like the Hasidic rabbi in “The Chosen.” (In the movie made of the book, a bearded Rod Steiger. Robbie Benson played Danny.) Choosing to belong to that extreme branch on the spectrum of our religion and culture doesn’t get you out of having to be compassionate. If anything, it obligates you to cultivate that quality.

This is why the supposedly Orthodox or fundamentalist Jews commanding Israel’s genocidal war — doing to another Semitic people what was done to their ancestors — are frauds. Not just frauds as Jews, but frauds in the Orthodox tradition they pretend to represent, whether when waging genocide in Gaza or stealing and destroying homes, burning olive trees, and killing people in the West Bank. They are not the just inheritors of this mantle. Not just the Jewish mantle but even the Orthodox or Hasidic mantle.

After Danny’s father reveals to his son, through his friend Reuven, the sacrifice he has made to try to instill in him this fundamental value to all Jews without which all his learning, all the books, is useless, even and especially for fundamentalist Jews, this value of compassion, Danny, Danny this machine-like aquisitor of knowledge, weeps.

When I think of this, when I think of the Abraham-and-Isaac like sacrifice this Hasidic rabbi, this father, makes (he may not kill his son on the altar, but he might have killed him with his silence), not just for his boy but for those who would follow and depend on his son when his son succeeds him, even if he leaves his formal religious surroundings to go out into the world, this sacrifice that a father makes to incite compassion in his son’s soul, and then I think of how this rabbi’s pretended descendants in Israel (many of those Colonists have Brooklyn accents) are blaspheming our religion by suppressing this value, conspicuous by its absence, in their acts, and are perverting their and our religion and our culture by doing to others what was done to us, of how thanks to these fraudulent Jews, the Palestinian English teachers they have killed will not be able to turn another child on to the power of books, the 15-year-old girls like Layan Hamadeh they have assassinated will not grow up to debate a passage in a book, when I think of how thanks to these profaners of our religion and culture 11,500 Palestinian children will never see another butterfly, I too weep.

Et j’accuse. Je vous accuse d’avoir trahi notre religion et notre heritage. I accuse you of betraying our religion and our heritage. Et vous, Joe Biden, je vous accuse de complicité dans ce genocide.

(Updated, 2/2/2024) The chevalier de la Barre, 2/1/2024: As Israel continues war on Gaza, flaunting Court order, Biden administration suspends funding to lead agency trying to protect and feed War’s victims

by Paul Ben-Itzak
Copyright 2024 Paul Ben-Itzak

(See here for our previous piece, “The genocide this time: How did the victims become the perpetrators? Why are we enabling it.”)

“The day after the International Court of Justice concluded that Israel is plausibly committing genocide in Gaza, some states decide to defund UNRWA, collectively punishing millions of Palestinians at the most critical time, and most likely violating their obligations under the Genocide Convention.”

— Francesca Albanese, United Nations Special Rapporteur for the Occupied Palestinian Territories

“This is a death sentence for Palestinians in Gaza.”

— Dr. Thaer Ahmad, emergency room physician from Chicago who recently spent three weeks in Gaza volunteering at Nasser Hospital in Khan Younis, speaking on Democracy Now.

“The whole case of UNRWA was used by Israel to distract attention from the ICJ [preliminary ruling] which indicted Israel for plausible genocide. Instead of punishing Israel they took up this case where Israel is claiming that some workers of UNRWA have been engaged in military actions without any proof, without investigation, and then… 12 European countries and the United States of America and Canada and Japan cut off support to the only organization that is providing humanitarian aid to Gaza, that is the only bridge to humanitarian aid in Gaza. We are subject to collective punishment, Palestinians who are the victims of the Israeli aggression, of the possibility of a genocide, are subject to collective punishment by these governments, none of whom have condemned the Israeli [recent] attack on the hospital.”

— Dr. Mustapha Barghouti, physician, activist, and general secretary of the Palestinian National Initiative, interviewed Wednesday on Democracy Now

“People are dying of hunger. The massacres — because there’s no other word for it — must be stopped. The hospital [here] is full of women and children. There is no justification for bombardments which result in hospitals full of women and children, extremely intense bombardments which hit hospitals. People are dying because there’s no medicine here to treat them. Humanitarian aid arrives in droplets. It’s a total violation of international law, the Israeli army prohibits this aid from arriving, humanitarian aid is blocked…. UNRWA is the sole actor which manages to bring food to hundreds of thousands of people in the North [of Gaza] . If you cut aid, tens of thousands of people in the North will die of hunger. At a moment when the [International] Court [of Justice] has ordered the prevention of genocide, you have one of the biggest actors of humanitarian aid who will be blocked.”

— Doctors without Borders official in charge of Palestine operations, speaking Wednesday night on French public radio chain France Inter, from a hospital in Gaza

You might think that with Israel having killed more than 26,000 Gazans in less than four months, the majority civilians including an estimated 11,000 children, and put most of the rest of the population of 2.3 million (whose well-being under international law it has the obligation as the occupying power to ensure) on the verge of famine by blockading all but droplets of food, water, medical supplies, fuel, communications, and electricity; the leading international tribune, the U.N.’s International Court of Justice, invoking the Convention against Genocide to which Israel is a signatory, having ordered Israel Friday to prevent and punish genocidal acts and let Humanitarian aid in; and Israel’s responding to the Court’s provisional ruling Friday by continuing to wage war on Gaza and blocking substantive Humanitarian aid from entering the enclave (in the first 15 days of January, Radio France reported this morning, Israel prevented 95 percent of U.N. aid trucks from reaching North Gaza), the United States would fulfill its own obligations as a signatory to the convention by speaking the only language the extremist Israeli government understands and cutting off military aid (which history shows works, Israeli PM Menachem Begin having pulled out of Lebanon in 1982 20 minutes after Ronald Reagan told him he’d cut off the spigot if he didn’t).

Instead, whereas nearly four months of Israel’s bombing, sniping, and shelling of hospitals, refugee camps, schools, universities, U.N. facilities, mosques, churches, homes, and Gazans fleeing to areas designated as “safe” by Israel, in the process killing journalists, medical workers, teachers, poets, elderly churchgoers, and U.N. workers and civilians sheltering in U.N. buildings (360 alone in 260 attacks on UNRWA facilities, UNRWA officials say) and sowing the seeds for more future suffering (10 Gazan children lose one or both legs every day, often amputated without anesthetics, and you can forget about post-natal care), plus Israel’s continuing its onslaught and blocking of substantive humanitarian aid after the Court’s provisional ruling have not been enough to incite the Biden administration to cut off the arms supply and stop blocking a U.N. Security Council cease-fire resolution which would allow Humanitarian aid to enter, it took only 24 hours for the U.S. to suspend its funding of the leading agency trying to step up where the U.S. has failed and protect and feed Gaza’s assieged civilian population, after Israel accused, without furnishing any proof — conveniently and in an obvious diversionary tactic, a day after the ICJ found that South Africa had made a “plausible” case for claims of genocide and effectively ordered Israel to stop — 12 of the 13,000 employees of the UNRWA, the U.N. refugee agency which has been the lifeline to Palestinians in the Occupied Territories since 1948 as well as the principal funder and operator of schools and other services, of taking part in Hamas’s October 7 massacre of 1200 Israeli and other foreign nationals, the majority civilians.

Israel’s strategy is obvious: When you don’t have a defense on the merits, taint the witness, here the United Nations, whose documentation of Israel’s war on Gaza, together with statements by Israeli officials indicating genocidal intent (including the Israeli defense minister’s describing all Gaza residents as “animals” before the invasion began, a window into the soul of Israeli extremists — though not all Israelis, many of whom are resisting, denouncing, writing against, and refusing to serve in Israel’s war on Gaza, notably the courageous 18-year-old conscientious objector Tal Mitnick — if ever there was one), constituted the bulk of the evidence collected by South Africa in the case it brought before the International Court of Justice January 11 accusing Israel of violating articles of the Convention against Genocide and calling for the Court to take immediate measures to stop the genocide.

Israel tried to change the subject, and the Biden administration fell for it, hook, line, and sinker. Or rather, cynically seconded it. (We all know this is about Joe Biden being afraid to criticize Israel, even in the face of obvious indications — now underlined by the Court’s provisional ruling — of an ongoing genocide, because of an outdated fear that he’ll lose Jewish votes. How little faith he has in our sense of righteousness! He’s already lost mine. How dare he assume that we would view this through a racial or if you prefer ethnic vector — that historical victims of genocide would not be on the side of contemporary victims of genocide?! Go Cornell West! A presidential candidate who’s not afraid to criticize Israel and has more faith in the collective Jewish conscience than Joe Biden.) Despite that the UNRWA immediately fired 9 of the 12 employees Israel accused of taking part in the October 7 massacre (between one and three of the others are reportedly dead), the U.S., followed by 12 other countries, including the United Kingdom, Australia, Finland, Japan, Italy, and Germany, suspended aid to the organization which even before the war provided the lifeline to 50 percent of the Gaza population and which has housed and fed up to a million during the current war on Gaza. The suspension threatens UNRWA operations across the Occupied Territories, notably its schools.

(Germany’s decision to suspend funding to UNRWA is particularly stupefying, given its unserendipitous timing. On Saturday, the same day he was announcing the suspension of aid to the lead agency trying to protect and feed civilians in the face of Israel’s onslaught, the German chancellor, commemorating the Shoah, was promising a German audience “Never Again.” If you want to prevent another genocide, suspending aid to the agency leading efforts to protect and feed a population threatened by an ongoing genocide now is not the way to do it. But then, this is also the country where school appearances in Hamburg by an 87-year-old American survivor of both the concentration camps and the Allied fire-bombing of Hamburg were recently cancelled after she criticized the genocide this time.)

We’re not talking about an abstract debate here but a decision which will have dire consequences for the 2.3 million civilians in Gaza efforts to protect and feed whom have been lead by UNRWA as well as on UNRWA schools and other infrastructure in Gaza and the Occupied West Bank for which Palestinians in the territories illegally occupied by Israel since 1967 already depended on the agency.

“This is a death sentence for Palestinians in Gaza,” Dr. Thaer Ahmad, a Chicago emergency room physician who just returned from spending three weeks in Gaza volunteering at the Al-Nasser Hospital, under the auspices of the World Health Organization, told Democracy Now’s Amy Goodman on Monday. “All two million are dependent on what UNRWA does.” Even before the war, explained Dr. Ahmad, an assistant professor of emergency medicine at the University of Illinois, Chicago, and board member of MedGlobal, UNRWA was “a lifeline to the Palestinians in Gaza, [for] everything from shelter, schooling, water, health access points, [and] food distribution…. UNRWA did this tremendous job of delivering aid to [the] half of the population that was dependent on it. They were instrumental in being able to allow people to make sure that they didn’t have food insecurity issues, to make sure that the water that they were drinking was relatively clean, to make sure that kids could go to school and that there were shelters in place.

“During the war, it became one of the only places that people whose homes have been destroyed or whose cities and neighborhoods were told to evacuate, that they could go to an UNRWA shelter without being turned away. If you go to Gaza right now, like I was in Khan Younis — and I saw an UNRWA school that had been transformed into a shelter across the street from the hospital — what you saw is that it was packed with people, packed with families and children, people who were staying there who were depending on the staff of UNRWA to be able to provide their daily meals.

“And I just cannot believe that this sort of response came so quickly. It’s sort of sadistic, in a way, to punish the entire Palestinian population for what are serious allegations, but you’re going to punish two million people, and you’re doing it with the backdrop of bombs dropping over them. And you know that many people have fled and been displaced. And now to cut off this lifeline, I just find it unconscionable, and I cannot imagine that this is something that was taken so lightly. It’s such a superficial understanding of what UNRWA does, to be able to say, ‘We’re going to just cut funding,’ and not also recognize the implications that it has on all of the population in Gaza right now.”

The Maison de Traduction Feuilleton (the Serial): Exclusive! “Trompe-l’Oeil,” Michel Ragon’s saga of artists, dealers, critics, the art market, & anti-Semitism in Post-War Paris, Part 20: Of starving artists and starving art critics

by and copyright Michel Ragon 1956, 2024
Translation copyright Paul Ben-Itzak 2024
From “Trompe-l’Oeil,” published in 1956 by Éditions Albin Michel

Click here to access parts 1-15, here for Part 19, and e-mail danceinsider@yahoo.com to request Parts 16, 17, and 18. As part of this year’s celebrations of the centennial of Michel Ragon’s birth, Editions du Centenaire de Michel Ragon is publishing “Les Ateliers de Pierre Soulages,” with 44 feuillets by the artist; Part 19 terminates with the critic Fontenoy’s overnight visit to Soulages’s atelier and home above Montparnasse.

Manhès had once again fallen on hard times. Too proud to go from gallery to gallery hawking his own paintings, he waited for buyers to come to him. In fact, the art dealers knew him well and were aware that he now had no gallery representation. It wouldn’t have done him any good to start from scratch like a young painter. On top of this, before Laivit-Canne’s offensive against him, he’d already acquired a significantly high market value that he could not maintain; the business at the Hotel Drouot auction house had broken him. To sell his paintings at a lower price would be to admit that they’d lost their value or that their former value had been exaggerated. Finally, a number of collectors, putting their trust in Laivit-Canne, had gotten rid of their Manhèses in favor of other painters.

Manhès sold off his personal collection of artifacts. One month he sold an African mask, another a pre-Colombian vase. All the objects, bought when things were going well, disappeared one after the other. Next it was the furniture that took the path of the pawn shops. When summer arrived, Isabelle and Moussia took off for the Limoges region to purge the oatmeal gruel they’d been subsisting on from their systems. Manhès refused to abandon Montparnasse. His pretext was that the country bored him, but the real reason was that he did not want to return to his in-laws’ without a penny in his pocket.

That torrid summer, starving in a deserted Paris, Manhès and Fontenoy plummeted into an unimaginable moral distress. They nevertheless met up every evening on the Select’s cool terrace, a kind of oasis amidst the scalding streets. But here again, even in a place where more than anywhere they usually felt at home, they were nudged out. Practically all the Montparnasse regulars had taken off on vacation. The foreign tourists now laid siege to the café terraces, wanting at all costs to sit in the old seat of a Hemingway or a Miller, to rub elbows with real artists. Amidst this jabbering crowd, Fontenoy and Manhès, the sole authentically Parisian artists, felt like intruders. They often had difficulty finding a free table and the waiters served them begrudgingly because they ordered hardly anything.

And yet Manhès, as always when Isabelle was away, drank heavily the moment he’d brought in a bit of money. Even so, their saucers were never piled up as abundantly* as those on the tables occupied by American tourists. The latter assumed that the height of the saucer stacks served as a kind of genius scale.

One evening when Manhès found himself sitting at the Select with Fontenoy and a Scottish Paris painter who, like them, couldn’t afford to go on vacation, he knocked over a glass which exploded on the sidewalk. A waiter shortly scurried over, seeing an occasion to try to eliminate these “worn-out” customers. Broken glasses are included in a restaurant’s general expenses and if an American broke a few bottles of beer as a sign of making whoopee, the manager felt obligated to break a few glasses himself as a sign of fraternity. Vexed by the waiter’s attitude, Manhès, who did not believe for one sole instant that anyone had the right to deprive him of his café, and who would never even consider sitting down at a table at a nearby bistro where he would have been welcome because it always had too many empty tables, Manhès requested in the most blasé tone possible:

“Garcon, how much for this glass?”

“50 francs.”

He pulled a 100-franc bill out of his pocket and handed it to the waiter.

“Keep the change.”

The garcon genuflected, babbling “merci” in turning his back, embarrassed. Manhès beckoned him back.

“Here, take another 100 francs (the garcon held out his hand)…. No no no, lower the mitts. This is my last remaining 100-franc bill. Watch how I tear it up into four parts, into eight parts…. We Jews are really tight-wads, eh? If I had a 1000-franc bill, I’d tear it up with the same relish….”

The waiter walked away, shrugging his shoulders. There was a momentary embarrassment, then Manhès and Fontenoy heard the chairs being moved around and they saw their Scottish friend, who emerged from under the table, red-faced:

“Me, I’m Scottish, I’ll pick up the pieces.”

Fontenoy had been to see the Scottish painter in his Lilliputian room on the Quay des Grands-Augustins.** To call it a “room” would be exaggerating. It was more of a cubby-hole under the roof, with only one yard-long stretch of floor where one could stand up straight. The part directly under the roof, for that matter, housed the divan. This artist, who had risen to the rank of commandant in the British army by virtue of having waged war for six years from Flanders to Syria and from Italy to the Elbe, could have attained a prominent social position in Grand Britain. But the painter’s passion is something so capricious that he preferred to come to Paris and be an apprentice painter, even if it meant living like the poorest of White-Chapel beggars.

No one ever takes pity on the misery of artists, except perhaps when they’re glorified, dead, and embalmed. Artists have no unions or, when they do, they’re powerless. The very idea of artists going on strike makes ordinary people laugh. So they crash where they can. They’re only tolerated in places where no one else could live. Fontenoy knew a colony of Japanese artists who lived in curious boxes above an outdoor market. In fact, the market was covered by a vast attic which the astucious owner had divided into an infinity of cubes using planks of wood recovered from demolition sites. Obviously, it was forbidden to have heaters or to cook in these cubes. The Japanese artists slept on the floor and survived on cold rice. Fontenoy also visited a colony of Scandinavian artists who lived in an abandoned warehouse in the tannery district. Here again, the owner had sectioned off the immense hanger. But he was unable to get rid of the stench. It was impossible to remain in the building for more than an hour before an intolerable desire to vomit precipitated you into the street.***

To be honest, it has to be said that another social category lived in the same discomfort, in the same misery as the majority of artists: North Africans. But as this group was very organized and infinitely more numerous in Paris, they ended up laying siege to the last refuges left to artists.

During the summer, therefore, as our Scottish painter couldn’t work in the hot-house that served him as a shelter, he descended to the quays, overlooking the Seine. Facing the towers of Notre Dame, before one of the most breathtaking views in the world, he unpacked his material, placed his virgin canvas on an easel, and worked without lifting his eyes on an abstract canvas which had absolutely nothing to do with the surroundings. The passersby, curious, peeped over his shoulder, understood nothing and walked away irritated at this dauber who was making fun of them. But the Scotsman wasn’t making fun of anyone. For that matter he hadn’t asked the promenaders to come contemplate his work. (I think about what might be the attitude of a building painter or a mechanic, if a crowd spent hours watching them work!)

The quays of Paris, already prey to so many mediocre painters, became acquainted with yet another unusual painter, this one a genuine hobo. Ever since the day when, from his refuge under the Point-Neuf bridge, he’d begun spotting landscape painters abuse colors, the desire had been born in him to paint. Rummaging through the garbage cans outside the Beaux-Arts School, he unearthed tubes which, carefully scraped, still contained a bit of pigment. He cobbled together a few brushes and stretched a waxed canvas on the pavement, held in place by four stones. He painted after nature, a nature that he knew well: the Seine, Point-Neuf, the Pont des Arts, the Pointe de la Cité, in other words the usual landscapes. Whenever he finished one, he walked down to the edge of the water, cleaned his waxed canvas and started again.

As his manner was naive, Morisset got wind of it and saw a good opportunity to launch a genuine naive painter who didn’t know anything about prices and sales methods. He tried to buy the famous waxed canvas for a few liters of wine, but the hobo-artist was not interested. As usual, he washed his new painting in front of a Morisset aghast and ready to call the police. But as it wasn’t yet permitted to force a hobo to sell a painting he wanted to erase, Morisset tried another tactic. He flattered the hobo, painting in glowing colors how prestigious an exhibition would be, the new life which was being offered to the new painter. The hobo chuckled softly and continued to wash every night the new painting he’d made during he day. From time to time he hit Morisset up for a few francs or a glass of red. Morisset clinked glasses, continuing to hope he could bring out his hobo-painter.

In the end, he gave up when he realized the hobo was sincere and that the art virus had won another convert. But the hobo-painter had given him an idea. He joined up with an industrious landscape painter out of whom he made a naive and for whom he rented a patchwork frock for the opening. The fake hobo-painter was photographed and interviewed. The press hailed a miracle. All his paintings sold out and Morisset bought a mink coat for his wife. A little while later it was learned that the real hobo-painter had committed suicide, not because of this imposture but because he also had gotten it into his head that he had something to say but was unable to express it.

In the fall, a painter just starting out offered Fontenoy the happy task of writing a preface for his new exhibition. Unfortunately, the critic didn’t care at all for the work that was presented to him. He didn’t dare categorically refuse, as he might have done before. That a beginner remembered his articles at a time when people had the tendency to forget them was infinitely agreeable to him. And after all, it was an occasion to renew his contact with the vernissage crowd. Fontenoy examined the paintings one after another, trying to find something good to say about them. But they reflected exactly the pretention, common to the layman when he found himself in front of an abstract painting for the first time, that he could easily “make something just as good.” These painters imitate the manner of abstract painters while being totally ignorant of the point of their research. Forms were plopped here and there without any reason and no color lived. The more Fontenoy looked at these paintings, the more they made him want to retch.

Then the unknown painter handed Fontenoy a 5,000-franc bill.* It was undervaluing the worth of an art critic. Fontenoy was surprised himself to see his hand close around the bill. At the same time, this single banal gesture annulled his entire past of honesty, of objectivity. He saw himself, with horror, penetrate Morisset’s world.

That a critic is paid by a gallery for a text he furnishes for the catalog or the vernissage invitation is normal. (Which is not to say, alas, that it’s typical.) Accepting money to write a preface for work that one detests, that one judges bad is a cardinal sin. Fontenoy had long been conscious of this and had only contempt for Morisset, who demanded to be paid in cash for the slightest line from his pen and for Arlov, who expected to be compensated carnally. But those 5,000 francs represented a pile of gourmet dishes, a few nights in a decent hotel bed…. Fontenoy was hungry and was tired of being a vagabond. Maybe, he told himself, Morisset started in the same way. And he suddenly felt a gust of fraternal tenderness for Morisset. He began regretting his contempt: “Let he who is without sin throw the first stone!”

He agreed to do the preface, thus signing his own surrender. In the days that followed, Fontenoy got ahold of himself, imagining that he could get out of this faux-pas by writing a preface that didn’t say anything — like, for that matter, the majority of prefaces. But the beginning painter brought it back to him, on the pretext that the gallery where he’d be exposing found the text useless unless it was more glowing:

“You talk about too many things which have nothing to do with my work. It would be better to write something shorter, but which only talked about me. Look, if we take just these five lines….”

He indicated a passage which, taken out of context, became effectively quite laudatory.

Fontenoy saw now where his initial abdication had led him. Never before had anyone permitted themselves to make such a suggestion. Even at the Artist his “papers” were never changed. The beginning painter had paid him. He had the right to get his money’s worth.

If Fontenoy hadn’t already dipped into the 5,000 francs, he’d have returned them straightaway.

The next day Fontenoy’s tormenter was back:

“My gallery (he’d started out with “the gallery director,” then “the gallery,” and now he was up to “my gallery”) thinks that at the end of the day, no one reads prefaces. Or they need to be very short….”

“But there are only five lines left!”

“It’s too many. Take out all that padding around the words ‘force… vigor… expressiveness… talent…’ and leave just that. It’s sufficient.

“But,” exclaimed Fontenoy, more and more horrified by the conduct of this curious beginner, “these words come out of multiple phrases and have nothing to do with your own work!”

“I just want those four words, in big letters, and your signature.”

Fontenoy didn’t feel he had the courage to show the intruder to the door, in purely and simply confiscating his 5,000 francs. Misery weakens resolution. Disabused, telling himself that in the end it didn’t matter, he agreed.

He might have quickly forgotten this incident (or this imprudence), if he hadn’t been reminded of it. In Montparnasse, some of the Select regulars made fun of his new protégé with a knowing look. But what hurt the most was the observation of a young painter he admired and who told him, “You also now, you’ve sold out. We counted so much on you….”

Once he’d returned from Montmartre, Fontenoy didn’t go back to live at Ancelin’s place. Montmartre re-appeared to him now, seen from Montparnasse, as a faraway colony peopled with strange creatures, with painters from another era like the old dethroned Rome Prize winner. With the end of summer vacation, the tourists decreased at the Select. Manhès, Fontenoy, and Ancelin found themselves once again reunited.

Despite his poverty, Manhès preserved a predilection for practical jokes and hoaxes. But Manhès’s sense of humor was bitter. Almost always, he based his pranks on his Jewish origins. If he spotted a soldier from the Salvation Army on the boulevard Montparnasse, he ran up to her and asked:

“Where can I convert? I’m a Jew and I only know the Old Testament.”

The volunteer wouldn’t get the joke and would try to convert him on the spot. There followed a round of bargaining which in general terminated with obscenities. The volunteer, suddenly outraged, fled as if she’d just seen a demon.

He struck up mind-boggling conversations with complete strangers who he accosted on the Select terrace, good solid bourgeoisies come to take their café in the hopes of meeting Picasso (who hadn’t frequented Montparnasse for 30 years). He subjected them to illogical paradoxes with such conviction that his interlocutors took him seriously. For example, he’d start out with an anti-Semitic declaration. If he stumbled upon a confirmed anti-Racist, he’d step up the tempo:

“I assure you, Monsieur, that Semites need to be hounded down wherever they are.”

If the other protested, Manhès would only get more persuasive:

“But see here, dear Monsieur, re-read your history! You’ll see that the Jews have always been persecuted. Therefore, if they’ve always been persecuted, there must be a good reason.”

And he’d conclude, with solemnity:

“One doesn’t have the right to defy History!”

To someone else, who talked to him about Braque, he insisted that this last was an impostor, for the very simple reason that no Frenchman should have the right to paint.

“All careers are open to Frenchmen. They can become notary publics, lawyers, pharmacists, who knows? But these poor foreigners who arrive in Paris, what would you have them do, if not painting? We should reserve the painting of the Ecole de Paris for foreigners.”

He accosted some very dignified women, asking them:

“Excuse me, Madam, would you by any chance be a sadist?”

Often the response was a shrugging of the shoulders or an indignant “Why I never!” But at other times his victims adapted a pitying and embarrassed tone.

“But Madame, we need sadists! What will become of masochistic men if there aren’t any sadistic women?”

He sprinkled his conversations with these strangers equally with “As the great painter Manhès was telling me the other day” or “Manhès, the great painter whose name is known to everyone.” At times, he pushed the game to prematurely interring himself, when someone, more curious than the others, asked him who was this Manhès?

“A great painter, dead too soon.”

Manhès’s pranks always ended with a cold shower.

During these divertissements, Ancelin remained impassive, distant, a young man of the world who’d been brought up well. He dragged his ennui behind the excited and gesticulating petit Manhès. His paintings might well fetch more than Manhès’s now, he still needed his spiritual charisma. He was like the son who can’t manage to free himself from parental authority. It was without a doubt this complex towards Manhès that was referred to as Ancelin’s loyalty.

*Parisian waiters typically kept track of how much customers had consumed by the number of saucers on their table.

**Where Picasso had his studio during the Occupation of Paris and where, when a pair of German soldiers, seeing “Guernica,” asked him who had made it, the painter responded, “You.”

***Since the 2000s, such ad-hoc artist habitations have become more and more rare with the Bobo-ization (or gentrification; BoBo = Bourgeoisie Bohemian) of Paris. In 2023, president Emmanuel Macron’s conservative government passed a new law that made squatters (and even lease-holders behind in their rent) subject to large fines and prison time.

***In 1956, 7.62 Euros or about $9.

The Chevalier de la Barre, 1-23-24 (updated 1-27-24): The genocide this time: How did the victim become the perpetrator? Why are we enabling it? UN Court orders Israel to take measures to prevent genocide and let aid through; report on Gaza hell

by Paul Ben-Itzak
Copyright 2024 Paul Ben-Itzak

(Update, January 27: On Friday January 26, the International Court of Justice in the Hague, ruling that there is “real and imminent risk” to the civilian population of Gaza, and that the Court thus has standing to rule on whether Israel is violating the international Convention on Genocide to which it is a signatory, ordered Israel to take immediate measures to prevent genocide in Gaza,where the Israeli army has killed more than 26,000 to date, the majority civilians including an estimated 11,000 children, according to the Palestinian health ministry in Gaza; to insure that its soldiers are doing the same; and to prosecute those individuals who are inciting to genocide, including high government officials. Responding to a case filed by South Africa and argued on January 11, the court also ordered Israel to ensure that effective humanitarian aid is delivered to Gaza’s 2.3 million population. For a recent report on conditions in Gaza by a veteran journalist Akram al-Satarri, click here. For a discussion of the ruling on Democracy Now, the source for much of the language above, click here.)

In memory of Ofra Haza, Robert Fagles, and John Franklin — a Holocaust survivor who believed in the statute of limitations, even for his persecutors.

“Genocides are never declared in advance. But this court has the benefit of the past 13 weeks of evidence, that shows incontrovertibly a pattern of conduct and related intention that justifies a plausible claim of genocidal acts.”

— Adila Hassim, lawyer for the government of South Africa, addressing the International Court of Justice in the Hague, January 11, 2024

“Monsters of the Id
No longer staying hid
And terrors of the night
Are out in broad daylight
No need to knock on wood
Don’t stop to stay a prayer

It won’t do any good
They’re multiplying in the air.
…Phantoms of the dark
have their own place to park
No need to lock the door
They’re sprouting through the cracks
They’re making room for more
They’re deputizing maniacs

Prehistoric ghouls
are making their own rules
and resurrected huns
are passing out the guns
No need to cause a fuss
Don’t go and make a scene

They know what’s best for us
They’re fighting fire with gasoline.
…Neanderthals amuck
Just trying to make a buck
Gobelins and their hags
are out there waving flags
When will we be rid
of Monsters of the Id?”

— Mose Allison, “Monsters of the Id”

“Every religion has its ‘hijackers’ but it is up to the majority of the followers to get it back to its true form.”

— Kathleen Azevedo Feinbloom

“Enough of violence and bloodshed — Enough!”

— Yitzhak Rabin

On Thursday January 11, the government of South Africa went before the International Court of Justice in the Hague to accuse Israel of genocidal intent and committing genocidal acts, asking the Court to take immediate measures to order Israel to stop its 100-day siege of Gaza, where as of that date it had killed 23,210 people (augmented to more than 26,000 since according to the Gaza health ministry, whose figures are typically confirmed by the United Nations), including 10,000 children, with another 7,000 presumed dead after being buried under the rubble of the residential and other buildings destroyed by Israeli bombing after the mass murderers of Hamas killed 1200 Israelis and other foreign nationals on October 7, including babies, the elderly, the handicapped, and longtime defenders of the Palestinian cause, and kidnapped 240 others, 137 of whom are still being held captive.

“For the past 96 days, Israel has subjected Gaza to what has been described as one of the heaviest conventional bombing campaigns in the history of modern warfare,” South African government lawyer Adila Hassim told the Court. “Palestinians in Gaza are being killed by Israeli weapons and bombs from air, land, and sea. They are also at immediate risk of death from starvation, dehydration, and disease, as a result of the ongoing siege by Israel, the destruction of Palestinian towns, the insufficient aid being allowed through to the Palestinian population, and the impossibility of distributing this limited aid while bombs fall. This conduct renders essentials to life unobtainable….” (Also last week, the Israeli human rights organization Bet S’elem accused Israel of deliberately using starvation as a strategy of war, singularly harkening civilization back to feudal times.)

“The first genocidal act committed by Israel is the mass killing of Palestinians in Gaza, in violation of article 2a of the Genocide Convention,” set up in 1948 following the genocide of Six Million Jews as well as the murders of gypsies, homosexuals, and the mentally handicapped, to which Israel is a signatory. “As the United Nations secretary general explained five weeks ago, the level of Israel’s killing is so extensive that nowhere is safe in Gaza. As I stand before you today, 23,210 Palestinians have been killed by Israeli forces during the sustained attacks over the last three months, at least 70 percent of whom are believed to be women and children. Some 7,000 Palestinians are still missing, presumed dead under the rubble. Palestinians in Gaza are subjected to relentless bombing wherever they go. They are killed in their homes, in places where they seek shelter, in hospitals, in schools, in mosques, in churches, and as they try to find food and water for their families. They have been killed if they’ve failed to evacuate, in the places to which they have fled, and even while they attempted to flee along Israeli-declared safe routes. The level of killing is so extensive, that those whose bodies are found are buried in mass graves, often unidentified. In the first three weeks alone following 7 October, Israel deployed 6,000 bombs per week; at least 200 times it has deployed 2,000-pound bombs in Southern areas of Palestine designated as safe. These bombs have also decimated the North, including refugee camps. 2,000-pound bombs are some of the biggest and most destructive bombs available….

“All of these acts individually and collectively form a calculated pattern of conduct by Israel indicating a genocidal intent. This intent is evident from Israel’s conduct in specially targeting Palestinians living in Gaza, using weaponry that causes large-scale homicidal destruction, as well as targeted sniping of civilians, designating safe zones for Palestinians to seek refuge, and then bombing these; depriving Palestinians in Gaza of basic needs: food, water, health-care, fuel, sanitation, and communications; destroying social infrastructure: homes, schools, mosques, churches, hospitals. And killing, seriously injuring, and leaving large numbers of children orphaned. Genocides are never declared in advance. But this court has the benefit of the past 13 weeks of evidence, that shows incontrovertibly a pattern of conduct and related intention that justifies a plausible claim of genocidal acts…. Every day there is mounting irreparable loss of life, property, dignity, and humanity for the Palestinian people. Our newsfeeds show graphic images of suffering that has become unbearable to watch. Nothing will stop the suffering except an order from this Court. Without an indication of provisional measures the atrocities will continue, with the IDF indicating that it intends pursuing this course of action for at least a year.” (Presentation monitored on Democracy Now. Coverage of the case on French public radio has been scant, with the evening newscast on middle-brow chain France Culture featuring 0 excerpts of South Africa’s testimony on the first day of proceedings, instead interviewing a guest who tried to debunk the case for genocide with specious arguments including suggesting that with 1 % of the Gaza population killed to date, it didn’t meet the genocide threshold, and on the second day featuring generous excerpts of the Israeli defense. Since then it has been practically radio silence.)

Why is the World, for all intents and purposes — for all the good it has done Israel’s victims in Gaza — standing by during this carnage? I have often wondered how the World could have stood by while Six Million Jews were being murdered by one of the most civilized peoples in the world. Now we are seeing the scourge of genocide repeat itself (at the hands of another cultivated people) — with the nuance that the descendents of yesterday’s victims are today’s perpetrators.

The claim made in the wake of the Holocaust, that we didn’t know, cannot be invoked this time. (Even though the bias, at least where I live, from the mainstream media — which often defers to the Israeli army version of events and still describes it as “the most ethical army in the world,” equates any criticism of Israel with support of Hamas; implies that casualty figures are suspect by attributing them to Hamas without mentioning that the U.N. has habitually confirmed these figures; ignores anything that happened before October 7 and, most tellingly, does not apply the same standards to describing Israel’s bombings and sniper killings of Palestinian, or brown, civilians, that it applies to characterizing Russia’s bombings and sniper killings of Ukrainian, or white, civilians — in part explains public confusion over the punishment Israel is meting out on Gaza, reinforcing the notion that Israel is simply defending itself because Hamas started it.)

The knee-jerk aversion to the evocation of the term of genocide to characterize Israel’s acts by, among others, a U.S. secretary of state who continues to make excuses for Israel’s acts (for example, by blaming Hamas for allegedly firing from hospitals and schools which, even if it proves true, does not under international law give Israel, which as the occupying power has the obligation to protect civilians, carte blanche to bomb hospitals, refugee camps, schools, and other civilian sites, and by limiting his criticism — after more than 20,000 deaths — to asking if Israel could do a better job of minimizing civilian deaths while continuing to block a cease-fire resolution at the U.N. security council), also needs to be understood in the context of a more recent genocide than the Holocaust, that in Rwanda, where President Clinton refused to invoke that term because he knew it would automatically trigger, precisely because of the 1948 Convention against Genocide of which the U.S. is also a signatory, required U.S. and international intervention to stop it. (How fitting, thus, that it has taken an African country, and not just any African country, but a country with its own history of racial repression followed by reconciliation and redemption in the form of a truth and reconciliation commission, to step into the moral breach and call an ongoing genocide a genocide.) Meanwhile, anyone who dares criticize Israel and defend Palestinian lives risks being described — not accused of, described — by mainstream media and on college campuses as being allies of Hamas or anti-Semites.

And yet, how can any Jew listen to the bone-chilling whir of bombs being massively dropped, without respite, on another people — another Semitic people — and learn of the bombing and sniper killing of children, doctors, nurses, journalists, the elderly, teachers, whole families in individual homes, mosques, elderly women sheltering in churches just trying to reach a toilet followed by their daughters trying to save them, hospitals, schools, refugees fleeing in cars, bare-chested men brandishing white flags (this last regretted as a mistake by Israel only when it realized the men were hostages), and refugee camps, of a civilian population being deprived of water, food, medical supplies, and fuel (even, ironically, during Chanukah, where the candles are lit for eight nights to commemorate how 2000 years ago the Jews, then the besieged and not the besiegers, made a bit of oil last eight days), by Jews, the historic victim, and not be revolted? And revolt. To paraphrase the philologist Dr. Mobius (for we Jews are also people of words) in “Forbidden Planet” (the 1957 science fiction classic that inspired Star Trek) when he realizes that the monster which has been going around killing his shipmates and a new crew of a mission sent to take him back to Earth against his will is the unchained Monster of his own Id, acting on his own fears and rage: “I, as a Jew, deny you, Israel, and the unbridled monsters of your Id.” We — Jews — do not preclude another Holocaust nor make up for marching meekly to the gas chambers by resurrecting the Warsaw Ghetto in Gaza, to cite the historical parallel Masha Gessen has drawn.

Why does the United States continue to fuel these merciless, pitiless acts of unbridled revenge (the reasonable need to find and prosecute those who planned and executed the massacres of October 7 does not justify the killing of 24,000 people in the process by what has clearly become a rogue state, deaf to international appeals to stop and let food, medicine, water, and fuel in; whence my evocation of “revenge”) by furnishing arms to Israel? (In 1982, Israeli prime minister Menachem Begin — a former terrorist leader who went on to lead his nation to peace with Egypt — pulled Israeli troops out of Lebanon 20 minutes after Ronald Reagan told him he’d cut off arms supplies to Israel if he didn’t.)

How can a committed and proven anti-racist who decided to run for president after the White Supremacist assault on anti-racists in Charlottesville have one policy when it comes to Russia’s deadly invasion of Ukraine and subsequent massacres of Ukrainians, where the victims are European and white, and another when it comes to Israel’s deadly invasion of Gaza and subsequent killings of Palestinians including women and children, journalists, medical workers (370 to date), churchgoers and teachers, where the majority of the victims are Arab and brown?

Why are the victims of the worse Holocaust of the 20th century, through the vector of a state which claims to represent them and their values, perpetrating what is fast becoming the worse genocide of the 21st? And why are we letting Israel get away with it?

Why is the mainstream media, at least here in France, regularly deferring to the Israeli Army version of events (most recently, Radio France’s reporting without challenge the army’s ludicrous claims, contradicted by reports from the U.N., the W.H.O, and NGOs including Doctors without Borders, that it’s letting the same number of aid trucks through to Gaza as before the war, and if they don’t reach their destination, it’s the fault of NGO incompetence or Hamas interference ((a claim debunked just this morning, when a more objective Radio France reporter noted that Israel has let only 6 aid trucks into the north of Gaza in the last 15 days)); and describing a raid Monday in which the Israeli army killed three Palestinians in Nablus, which Israel has illegally occupied since 1967, as having taken place during “confrontations” after an Israeli “security operation”; yesterday it killed nine more ((some of whom French public radio described as “combatants”)) in raids on two refugee camps), while labeling figures of the casualties that army is inflicting on Gaza as “claims” variously attributed to “the Hamas health ministry,” “Hamas,” “the Islamic movement of Hamas,” and “the Islamists of Hamas” — in other words, the same folks who brought you October 7, 2023 in Israel, September 11, 2001 in the United States, and January 7 and November 13, 2015 in France, and why should we believe them? — and as impossible to verify while rarely mentioning that for this one and Israel’s previous four wars on Gaza which killed 4,000 people including 1,000 children according to the U.N., the United Nations has typically confirmed figures provided by the Gaza health ministry?

Why are scholars taking to the air-waves of French public radio (I’m not trying to pick on the French; these just happen to be the air-waves that I monitor) and insisting, even in the face of these facts and without being contradicted, that Israel’s army is “the most ethical army in the world”?

Why has the mainstream media rejected Putin’s attempts to describe his war on Ukraine as an “operation” against the “Kiev regime,” but adopted identical language when it comes to Israel, describing its war on Gaza as “Israel’s war with Hamas,” sometimes substituting “operation” for “war”? Why is it so credulous when it comes to Ukrainian reports on civilian deaths inflicted by Russia and dubious over Palestinian reports, confirmed by U.N. officials, on civilian deaths inflicted by Israel? And yet Israeli bombs (many of them supplied by the United States; though while just this morning Radio France featured a special report on a Ukrainian team which examines bombs dropped by Russia to determine their origin, there has been scant reporting on the origins of the bombs Israel is dropping on Gaza) have been producing the equivalent of a Maripol in Gaza every few days. (And while we’re speaking of theaters, in the Occupied West Bank, the Israeli army ransacked the offices of the Freedom Theater, arresting one of its directors and humiliating another by questioning him outdoors in the cold.)

Of course — of course — one should also be outraged by the Hamas mass murderers’ massacre of October 7. If anything, I think the mainstream media has not gone far enough, in using the term “terrorist” (an adjective describing a tactic, when what is called for is a verb describing the act) to describe these killers, given that it has historically been used not just by the good guys to qualify the bad guys but the bad guys to discredit the good guys, as when the Collaborationist Vichy press applied this etiquette to the Maquis or Resistance, as opposed to naming these killers by their acts and calling them mass murderers and kidnappers; and in insufficiently focusing on Hamas’s assassination of 260 young men and women dancing together to music at a techno rave party as an indice which unequivocally affiliates Hamas with D’esh and its November 13, 2015 assassinations of 80 insouciant young men and women mingling together and dancing to rock music in the Paris nightclub of Bataclan. I only ask: Where was the mainstream media outrage (or even sufficient reporting) before October 7, when the Israeli army and settlers had killed 240 Palestinians including 40 children in the Occupied West Bank in 2023 before that date, having killed more than 350 since, including, on Monday, in an Israeli assault near Hebron, a 21-year-old woman making preparations for a wedding, who leaves behind a six-month-old daughter? It should be possible to both condemn abominable claims like that of Hanan Ashrawi, the respected Palestinian diplomat, who told Democracy Now after October 7 that “Hamas is not D’esh,” by pointing out that if it walks like D’esh, talks like D’esh, and kills like D’esh, it’s D’esh, and dispute the mainstream media’s characterizing this conflict as having begun October 7, pointing out that the conflict began long before then, without being accused of excusing Hamas-D’esh’s criminal massacre, one of the conflict’s most brutal chapters.

And it should be possible to make the charges and observations that South Africa is making, that I am making, that U.N. and World Health Organization officials, Doctors without Borders officials, Jewish human rights organizations, Knesset members, Israeli journalists, Palestinians on the ground, journalists on the ground (at least 83 journalists have been killed in Gaza since October 7, the majority Palestinian and most of them killed by the Israeli army according to the Committee to Protect Journalists, which says that more journalists have been killed by Israel over ten weeks in Gaza than in one year in any other war of since 1992), the U.N. Secretary General, Jewish and Israeli scholars, and thousands of Jews and others who have been protesting Israel’s actions have made without our honest observations being denigrated as ‘machine-like argumentation’ driven by ‘allegiance to a camp’ — as opposed to sincere conviction and objective analysis of the facts on the ground — by respected scholars like William Marx of the College de France. “On se déclare propalestinien ou pro-israélien, au choix, et l’on argumente en conséquence comme des machines, ni plus ni moins,” wrote Professor Marx in Le Monde on November 15. (“One declares oneself pro-Palestinian or pro-Israelian, as one likes, then argues in consequence like machines, nothing less.”)

How summarily dismissive of our intellectual and political franchise — and the sincerity and independance of our convictions! (Those of us condemning Israel’s massive bombings of a civilian population, too targeted to be dismissed as “collateral damage,” are neither “pro-Israelian” or “pro-Palestinian”; we are pro-Human and Humanist.) Particularly when it comes from the mouth of a teacher! Because of Professor Marx’s own apparently less than full awareness of the facts on the ground prior to and since October 7 — as suggested by his construction of the equation, in which he says Israelis have the right to security, Palestinians have a right to a state, but leaves out that Palestinians also have the right to security, in their homes and lives — he assumes that our conclusions are based on allegiance to a camp, when in fact it is the other way around. If I and others are able to conclude (to our vast regret, particularly when we are Jewish and American) that Israel is committing genocide and other war crimes, as well as ethnic cleansing, it is because we and I did not just start paying attention to this conflict on October 7, 2023, but have been studying, monitoring, analyzing, and writing about it for decades, in my case since 1978. Because of this careful scrutiny and historical knowledge of the situation — and not because of any camp allegiance (in fact I started out in the other “camp,” after visiting Israel as part of a State Department-sponsored national high school delegation in 1978; the turning point was Israel’s invasion of Lebanon in 1982) — we and I are able to see the pattern, that this current attempt at ethnic cleansing is part of a pattern that started in 1948, when Israel celebrated its founding by forcibly expelling hundreds of thousands of Palestinians from their homes and land (as documented by the Israeli scholar Ilan Pappe), ratcheted up in 1967, when Israel began its illegal occupation of the West Bank and Gaza and subsequently put thousands of Palestinians into unlimited “administrative detention,” and culminated in Israel constructing what Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, and Israeli and Palestinian human rights organizations have amply documented is an Apartheid state, with different rules and rights for and treatment of different people based on their race.

If anything, Professor Marx’s remarks not only suggest a regrettable disdain for the opinions of anyone who disagrees with his opinion that Hellenists know best (I’ll get to that) but suggests a marked gap of understanding of the history of this particular situation by an otherwise erudite (to put it mildly; when it comes to literature and its relevance to life, this man scales intellectual heights I can only aspire to) college professor who would aspire to speak authoritatively about it in two public forums (Le Monde on November 15, the public radio chain France Culture on November 19, when Israel had already killed 13,000 in Gaza, and where Professor Marx stood silent when another guest repeated the tired canard that Israel’s army is “the most ethical army in the world”). Intellectuals need to be conscious of the impact of their words when they take their opinions public — particularly in a country like France, which has always venerated its public intellectuals and automatically vested them with a certain authority, and when it pertains to a situation where many in the general public are still confused in part because of a mainstream media bias towards Israel which did not start October 7.

Our Hellenist (said with respect and not sarcastically) — living up to his subject Paul Valery’s observation (in “The Eyes of Berthe Morisot“) that people tend to view the same object differently based on their metier — suggests that rather than viewing the events in Gaza through the lens of our evident campism, we should be trying to understand them through the prism of the Greeks, notably “Antigone,” for their model of cultivating empathy for both sides. I have spent a lot of time with “Antigone,” in anticipation of mounting a production of Jean Anouilh’s version, which premiered in Occupied Paris in February 1944. I agree that Anouilh makes a pretty good case for having empathy for the nominal villain of the piece, Creon, who would much rather be out scouring the antique stores than assuming the responsibilities of king but who when duty called, rolled up his sleeves to get the job done because someone has to do it. (A troubling echo with Vichy.) But Benjamin Netanyahu is not Creon. Creon ordered (reluctantly) the burying alive of all of one person, albeit his niece (provoking a chain of events that leads to the deaths of two more people, his son and his wife), for defying his orders that the body of her brother, killed in a fratricidal war with another brother, be left to rot unburied, as a reminder to his subjects of the stench of war. And more important, because it was the law and he could not make an exception for his niece. Benjamin Netanyahu and the religious, patently racist fanatics running his government launched a war of vengeance in which his army, flauting international law, has now killed more than 24,000 people (13,000 at the point at which Professor Marx wrote his essay and discussed it on France Culture on November 19), most of them civilians including an estimated 10,000 children, and in the manner described above. And left many of them to be buried in mass graves. Like the perpetrators of the October 7 massacres and kidnappings, the perpetrators of the massacres in Gaza (by which I mean those who planned the bombing and sniping campaign and carried it out, not the Israeli public as a whole, which includes many valiant Israeli citizens, soldiers, Knesset members, scholars, journalists, and human rights advocates who have and are protesting and defying this war on Gaza) — which are not “collateral damage” but the result of deliberate targeting of civilian sites and individual civilians — do not deserve our empathy.

I have been struggling with this part of this essay. Partly because I am aware it reflects — in the intensity of my arguments — my own intolerance when people don’t agree with me, particularly on this issue. Particularly when they are my intellectual heroes. After virtually auditing his four previous courses at the College of France and hoping to audit the latest (“How to read?”) this semester in Paris, I have looked up to Professor Marx as one of my potential new ‘maitres’ (mentor is the closest English translation), a fitting successor to Robert Fagles, who was my teacher at Princeton and who I had the honor of interviewing for the New York Times on the publication of his translation of the Oedipus cycle. (When he told me, “Oedipus had to be burnt to a crisp in order to emerge whole again,” just one of the many lessons Dr. Fagles taught me.) His courses — on topics like “Imaginary Libraries,” “The New Stars,” “Lost Oeuvres,” and “Paul Valery’s College de France Poetics Course” — are tours de force of erudition, marvel, wonder, intellectual, literary, and metaphysical exploration (in fact they sometimes feel more like literary expeditions than classes), humanity, and even vulnerability (his sadness at lecturing to an empty auditorium during the Covid confinement was palpable). As well as humility; Professor Marx is not above letting himself be corrected, in public, even when the correction comes from an 11-year-old girl, in this case pointing out that contrary to Professor Marx’s contention in one lecture, Tintin actually has been known to laugh.

I just hope that now that we have seen the increasing magnitude of what Israel is doing in Gaza, to Gazans, and to humanity — Professor Marx made his comments in mid-November — he will take another look. I don’t dispute the principle of looking to the Classics (particularly “Antigone”) to help us understand and shed light on the present; I just don’t think that it applies here as the magnitude of the crimes committed by both Hamas and the Israeli army is too grand.

I also wish that rather than — or maybe in addition to, for its more appropriate application to this specific situation, the resurgence of genocide — the Greeks Professor Marx had pointed to “The Plague,” the work of Albert Camus — the greatest public intellectual of the 20th century (and a decided non-campist), which I read for the first time on that high school exchange trip to Israel and which concludes:

“Listening to the cries of joy which rose from the city, Rieux reminded himself that this insouciance was still at risk. Because he knew something this happy crowd did not, and that one could read in books, that the plague bacillus never completely dies nor goes away, that it can remain dormant for decades in the furniture and the sheets, that it waits patiently in the bedrooms, the basements, the trunks, the handkerchiefs and the file cabinets and that, maybe, the day would come when, for the misfortune and the edification of Mankind, the plague would wake up its rats and send them to die in the city on the hill.”

In writing these lines (which I’ve translated) — after having begun work on the book during the German occupation of France, during which time he returned to Paris under a false name with a false passport and edited the underground newspaper Combat — Camus understood that the lesson of this war and the genocide which was its central crime was that it can happen again, it can happen again in any place, and it can happen again to anybody; that the germ was still alive. And that we need to be vigilant if we are to insure that it never happens again.

So: Why haven’t we learned the lesson, at least as pertains to the genocide now being perpetrated on Palestinians by Israel according to the accusation presented by South Africa before the International Court of Justice last week, and being both armed and morally enabled by the United States?

The first explanation, as developed above, is racism: As in Rwanda and unlike Ukraine, the victims here are not white.

The second is that for 75 years, we have let Israel play the Jewish, or Holocaust card, using it as a perpetual get-out-of-war-crimes-jail free card, with the ancillary effect that any criticism of (let alone call to boycott) Israel or simply defense of Palestinians is ascribed to anti-Semitism* or risks retaliation, e.g. by the cancellation of events or exhibitions by those doing the critiquing. Whence the crackdown in the United States (in the guise of a new form of loyalty oath imposed on anyone who wants to be a public employee in certain states) on supporters of the non-violent movement to Boycott, Sanction, and Divest from Israel. Whence the banning of Jewish Voice for Peace by Columbia/Barnard, and the forced resignations of the (female, and in one case African-American) presidents of Harvard and the University of Pennsylvania after they were falsely portrayed as not adequately squelching campus opposition to Israel’s actions (i.e. inadequately clamping down on campus “anti-Semitism”). Whence the decision of Indiana University to cancel the first U.S. exhibition by a celebrated Palestinian artist, I.U graduate school alumna Samia Halaby, after she criticized Israel’s bombardment of Gaza. Whence the reluctance to criticize Israel on the part of some Jews of a certain generation who still believe we need a refuge when the next Holocaust comes around and who have bought into the vision of an imaginary egalitarian Israel which has never really existed. (I used to be one of them.) And whence the unflinching U.S. government support for and funneling of arms to Israel, and its continued blocking of a cease-fire resolution from the United Nations Security Council (racism also playing a part here, given the contrast with the U.S.’s support of Ukraine, where the victims of the Russian bombardments are white). (I’m not trying to avoid talking about the elephant in the room — rich Jewish supporters of Israel, who exert their influence individually, through the America-Israel Public Affairs Committee which spends millions of dollars to defeat any Congressperson who dares criticize Israel, and on the boards of universities — I just don’t know that I have anything to say here you haven’t heard before.) Finally, there’s the residual guilt over having turned a ship-load of Jewish asylum seekers back to Europe and their certain deaths in the camps during World War II.

As for the causes behind the longtime bias towards Israel on the part of the mainstream media in France as well as occasional government efforts to impeach demonstrations critical of Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians, both of which did not start October 7, Rasha Al Jundi nailed it when, explaining repression of pro-Palestinian voices in Germany in an article published by the Evergreen Review in November, he cited “bottled up public guilt from the Holocaust.” (The full citation: “Bottled up public guilt from the Holocaust, together with systemic racism in the German political system, contribute to biased and blind support to a fascist settler colony in Israel.” I point only to the first as possibly applying to France.)

Bottled up public guilt from the Holocaust — in this case, over the Vichy government having deported 74,000 French and foreign-born Jews including 11,000 children, with only 3,000 returning from the camps — is the only explanation I can come up with for this bias towards Israel, for the constant and deliberate confounding by the mainstream French media of any criticism of Israel (as well as the non-violent Palestinian civil society led movement to Boycott, Divest from, and Sanction Israel) with anti-Semitism, in which it has adopted the position of the self-proclaimed representative organization of Jews in France, which has always accorded its unequivocal support to the extremist Netanyahu government, as well as the recently resigned prime minister’s efforts to label the Left-leaning Insoumis party as anti-Semite over its critiques of Israel and defense of Palestinians. As a Jew living in France, I don’t get this. If there was any reason for Frenchmen today to feel guilty about a crime none of whose perpetrators are alive today, it was forcibly and convincingly evacuated when Jacques Chirac, speaking shortly after his 1995 election as president in front of the very Winter Velodrome where 10,000 of those Jews had been rounded up to be deported, proclaimed that “France has to assume its share of responsibility” for the deportation. It has also been acknowledged in the numerous plaques affixed to French schools enumerating how many Jewish children from that school and/or its arrondissement were rounded up by the Vichy government acting in the name of France to be deported.

For me as a Jew living in France, if France’s part in the deportation dictates anything, it is not special treatment for a Jewish state because the Jews were the victims the last time but special vigilance that this — genocide — does not happen to anyone again, whoever the victims and whoever the perpetrators.

Because for me — as for most Jews — when we said Never again we did not mean Never again to Jews but never again to anybody. Especially — especially — at the hands of Jews.

*Thanks to Masha Gessen’s New Yorker article cited above and published last month, we know that this confounding of anti-Zionism or criticism of Israel with anti-Semitism isn’t accidental, but deliberate. “In 2016,” writes Gessen, “the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (I.H.R.A.), an intergovernmental organization, adopted the following definition: ‘Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.’ This definition was accompanied by eleven examples, which began with the obvious — calling for or justifying the killing of Jews — but also included ‘claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor’ and ‘drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.’

“This definition had no legal force, but it has had extraordinary influence. Twenty-five E.U. member states and the U.S. State Department have endorsed or adopted the I.H.R.A. definition. In 2019, President Donald Trump signed an executive order providing for the withholding of federal funds from colleges where students are not protected from antisemitism as defined by the I.H.R.A. On December 5th of this year, the U.S. House of Representatives passed a nonbinding resolution condemning antisemitism as defined by the I.H.R.A.; it was proposed by two Jewish Republican representatives and opposed by several prominent Jewish Democrats, including New York’s Jerry Nadler.” (Indeed, as Gessen reports, the targets of policies equating criticism of Israel with anti-Semitism have often been Jewish critics of Israel.)

The Chevalier de la Barre, 01/06/24: Of Beckys, Balzac, & Bogeymen

by Paul Ben-Itzak
Copyright 2024 Paul Ben-Itzak

In honor of Becky Thatcher, Mark Twain’s literary prototype for the American girl and the first in a long line of Rebeccas, Beckys, and Beccas to figure out how to get under the skin of American boys. And of migrants everywhere. A special tip of the Chevalier’s Basque beret to Jacques for forwarding Christine Taubira’s Facebook post.

“To a place in the past we’ve been passed out of
Oh oh oh oh oh
Now we’re back in the fight.”

— The Pretenders, “Back on the Chain Gang”

“France now has the shield it needs.”

— French president Emmanuel Macron, celebrating France’s latest immigration law, passed in December by the French assembly with the unanimous support of the xenophobic National Front party legislators.

“They have fear in their guts.”

— Christine Taubira, former French justice minister, upon passage of the new immigration law

“Listening to the cries of joy which rose from the city, Rieux reminded himself that this insouciance was still at risk. Because he knew something this happy crowd did not, and that one could read in books: that the plague bacillus never completely dies nor goes away, that it can lay dormant for decades in the furniture and the sheets, that it waits patiently in the bedrooms, the basements, the trunks, the handkerchiefs and the file cabinets and that, maybe, the day would come when, for the misfortune and the edification of Mankind, the plague would wake up its rats and send them to die in the city on the hill.”

— Albert Camus, “The Plague” (La Peste)

The first Becky in my life, Becky Rothman (not her real last name), was more important for her father Bill, who saved my younger brother’s life, than for any adventure we had together; this is how the Rothmans came into our lives.

We were living not far from Liberty Street, where my guardian angel lived at the time. She was not a Becky, she was a Mimi (or so I remember her; my mother would later tell me that her name was actually Mia), who turned over in her crib one day and died at the age of three-and-a-half; I still remember Mimi dancing on the waxed wood floor of the Kitigawas’ living room, swirling in a dark green dress with tiny pink flowers, her long straight black hair intersected by a bow. The Kitagawas were friends with the Rothmans, who lived in a hippified dark blue and green Edwardian or Victorian on Castro near Liberty. Bill was a dentist so when my brother began choking on a piece of meat, Niki or Miki Kitagawa ran and fetched Bill, who reached into his throat and extracted the morsel, saving his life. Bill would later become our dentist, using laughing gas in lieu of novacaine to put us under while he pulled our teeth out. Becky’s brother Saul, who was my age — we were born just a few days apart, in May 1961 — had a particularly distinguished schnozzola, so my brother and I, in excursions to Agate beach in Bolinas (the town where they have a road sign steering would-be visitors in the opposite direction, and where Richard Brautigan would later kill himself with a rifle pilfered from a peeper in Babylon), would call out, “Hey Saul!” making a nose jutting out gesture with our hands (with accompanying sound that’s hard to reproduce in print) as soon as he turned around, and dash towards the glittering surf — from the agates — with Saul nipping at our heels. The aggravated nature of our relations never really changed, if anything degenerated. When I ran into Saul at the Rooftop reunion in 1994 — for the alternative San Francisco public elementary school which my brother, Becky, Saul and I had been among 150 privileged kids to inaugurate in 1972 (along with Gio Coppola, the director’s son, who would later be accidentally killed while sailing with the son of Ryan O’Neal, who recently died; I’d go on to interview Gio’s mother Eleanor when she made “The making of Apocalypse Now” and brother Roman when he produced “The Spirit of ’76,” a science fiction ’70s spoof featuring David Cassidy), which reunion I was DJing in my African dashiki (which if I were still a kid and going to school in France today might get me turned away at the door as a threat to lay values under a new law which interdicts smatas with alleged religious content) purchased in a Jamaican record shop across the street from the Church of John Coltrane on Divisadero, our daily bus route from Noe Valley to Rooftop in Pacific Heights, killing my fellow Rooftopians softly with my song (DJing the 1994 reunion), Saul, being Saul, got annoyed; “Can you turn the music down?” I ran into him again in New York, where I was journalising and he was photographing, in 1995 and again in 2011, when we were both turning 50. Saul still being a poop, when I responded to his sharing with me his photography site by sharing with him our Dance Insider site, https://danceinsiderblog.wordpress.com/, he sniffed, “I don’t read online” and I told him what I thought of that. In retrospect, I probably should have said “No problem,” invited Saul for a beer and dog at Rudy’s in Hell’s Kitchen, and then, just when he opened his mouth to say “I don’t eat hot dogs,” shouted — for all to hear — “Hey Saul!,” accompanied by the nose prolonguing gesture and sound and then leaving him to chase me down Ninth Avenue.

I was about gonna say that my relations with Becky Rothman were not so tempestuous as they were with Saul, but then I realized that, as the first obviously Jewish girl I knew, she became a kind of prototype (for non-Jews who would caricature us, the name itself is a kind of stereotypical catch-all; witness “Rebeccas all over the place in the Marais,” the 4th arrondissement installment of Leo Malet’s “New Mysteries of Paris,” a series of crime novels published in the late ’40s and 1950s updating Eugene Sue’s 19th-century newspaper serial “The Mysteries of Paris,” with each intrigue set in a different arrondissement. In the Marais adventure, French literature’s prototypal gumshoe Nestor Burma follows a trail of dead Jewesses from an artist’s studio on the Ile St. Louis to the rue des Rosiers and a Jew who collaborated with the Nazi occupants by turning in other Members of the Tribe, adding quisling to our other sundry nefarious traits, with the dubious redemption that it’s ultimately an Israeli commando squad in Paris which avenges the betrayals and redeems Jewish pride, in which department today’s Israeli army is kind of running it out, don’tchya think?); if I never had a thing for Becky, in later years I would have things for women whose initial appeal was that they reminded me of Becky, starting with a girl whose name I can’t remember, who after we’d been hanging out for a while replied to my avowal that I liked her with, “I’m gay; aren’t you?” When I said I was not, she insisted, “My gay-dar is never wrong.” It is this time, baby! “I mean, you do like wearing bandanas after all.” After this I considered getting a tee-shirt made with “Girl Toy” written on it just so women would know I was available. (When I was 14, two girls, neither of whom was named Becky — in fact there wasn’t a Becky in sight, at least that I can remember, in all my years of junior high school, except for Becky Rothman, who was still hovering on the periphery, at James Lick Junior High — Linda Mull and Felicia French, gave me a baby blue tee-shirt on which they’d had inscribed “Monster Boy”; they even made up a song, sung to the tune of “Soldier Boy,” into which they would spontaneously break out in the halls of the same junior high school where Carlos Santana had strummed his baby chords a few years earlier. I really missed my chance with Felicia ((I can’t tell you why I believe this without violating the confidence of a personal dream Felicia shared with me during one of our three-hour phone conversations, made even more intimate by my listening to her from the dark small closet under the indoor stairs of our 25th Street Edwardian)), who was the first girl I fell head over heels for as a pre-teen when I met her a year before “Monster Boy” at a Glen Park ping-pong tournament ((I made the all-city finals for my age category, before getting trounced by a 9-year-old Chinese kid whose spins I couldn’t touch)) but who I was sure was out of my league. At Lick, we acted together in Tennessee Williams’s “This Property is Condemned,” the school’s entry in the all-city junior high drama contest, which had earlier been expanded into a film starring Nathalie Wood and Robert Redford; Felicia, who shared Nathalie’s big-eyed beauty, played Nathalie’s little sister talking about how Nathalie, or Alma, was now in “The Bone Orchard,” prompting my big line as “Boy”: “The BONE ORCHARD!?”, for which I won the best supporting actor award in the 1976 San Francisco Junior High School Theater Festival, my only competition being Chip Williams, my best friend the year before at Corbett Community School, who was supposed to die of a brain tumor by the time he was 20. Two years later, studying under Lewis Campbell at the Center for Theatre Training ((Center)) I would direct the play, with another heart-throb since I was 11 years old who I considered untouchable, Stacey J., succeeding Felicia.)

Except that Becky — I started out this story intending to talk about Beckys, after I counted them up and realized that quite a few have marked important passages in my life — except that Becky hung out with the prissy crowd at Rooftop, I can’t say that our relations were as acrimonious as those between me and Saul. But even that reference allows me to introduce Kathy D., another member of the prissy crowd (“prissy” through the eyes of an 11-year-old boy who didn’t have a lot of confidence around girls, so much so that he convinced his parents to have his doctor attempt to drill away a birthmark in the middle of his upper lip, as he clutched the Rooftop yearbook for courage), who I remember in her white skirt and red sweater and long straight blonde hair held in a beret as we teased each other on the way to Jackson Park on Rooftop’s lunch breaks; Brooks Solon was another of that crew, Brooks who wrote in the 1973 Rooftop yearbook in the Sixth-Grade Wills section that “I leave my stinky sox to Becky,” or maybe it was me. While I have not seen Brooks since Rooftop or at least Lick, I did hook up with Kathy again in the early ’80s, when we were both about 20 or 21; by then she had cut her hair and I got an androgynous vibe from her (or maybe she just wasn’t interested in me in that way). We hung out a bit; I remember going to see “Atlantic City” with Kathy, and a distinguished looking, mustachio’d Burt Lancaster from his window watching Susan Sarandon from behind hers wiping down her naked arms with lemons. I next saw Kathy, absolutely luminous and in long hair again, at the memorial for her brother Mark, who had committed suicide, at the Swedenborgian Church on Washington or Sacramento Street. Later I heard that she was working as a personal assistant for Agnes DeMille, unfortunately before I got into dance and moved to New York in 1995, living right down the street from Agnes (she was at 11th and Fifth, Fifth Avenue where I once stalked William Dafoe from 59th Street to Washington Square, deviously smirking like William Dafoe would, especially when he was stopped by a lady fan) on W. 8th Street between Fifth and the Avenue of the Americas next to Electric Lady, where Jimi Hendrix and, more significant for me, Carly Simon had recorded. (“You’re so Vain,” which at the time I heard as “You’re so Vague,” had been along with “Killing Me Softly,” “Dancing in the Moonlight,” “Could it be I’m falling in love?,” “Daniel,” “Crocodile Rock,” and of course “Seasons in the Sun” my Rooftop theme song.)

Before I moved to New York, I moved to Princeton, its proximity to NY being one of the main attractions, the others including F. Scott Fitzgerald — whose Princeton paene “This Side of Paradise” is required reading for all freshmen — and Joyce Carol Oates, who taught creative writing (and would later overrule another creative writing teacher, Reginald Gibbons, who tried to head off my incipient writing career by blocking me from advancing to the next level, after I turned in a story cut into one-inch wide strips with one word on every line, channelling Apollinaire long before I’d heard of him). I could talk more about her but we’re trying to stick to our theme here, which is putatively Beckys (Balzac and French president Emmanuel Macron’s new bogeymen come later), and I realize I forgot the one who came between Becky Rothman and Becky H. at Princeton, Becky N., who showed up at Center, my FAME-like high school theater conservatory in San Francisco, in time to be the best singer (not too hard; we were more Stanislavski than Sondheim) in our production of “Godspell” — she got “Day by Day” — and be my girlfriend for about a week, starting at the cast party at the house of who I’ve forgotten except that it was in the East Bay near the water, which meant we all had to stay overnight and there was lots of spontaneous pairing up, me with Becky (in a very G-rated way). Our first and last date (no bitter break-up; it just didn’t stick), it seems, was a ferry ride to Sausalito. Like Becky Rothman Becky N. was very Jewish-looking with the frizzy hair (if Balzac, in his last, aborted novel, can describe a Jewish doctor in Montparnasse as having a typically protuberant Jewish nose after assigning him a stereotypically Jewish avariciousness ahead of dropping ‘Doctor’ and henceforth referring to him as “the Jew” — and yes this, and not criticizing Israel for setting loose the Monsters of its Id to bomb a civilian population whose well-being is its responsibility to smithereens while killing 23,000 of them, is what real anti-Semitism looks like — then a Jewish guy should be able to describe a girl as being Jewish-looking). That our pairing was not so odd as all that was indicated when Lewis later cast her as Emily in “Our Town”; I’d been dreaming of playing George since reading Wilder’s play in sophomore year, though preferably paired with Karen Sullivan, my dream girl (she grew up to be a lawyer but as I have nothing controversial to say about her — we’d hook up, probably in the late ’80s, to go out dancing at Bajones — I think it’s safe to give her last name), but had to choose between helping to save the school district — by that time I was the first year-term student delegate on the San Francisco Board of Education, just in time to help lead the fight against Proposition 13 (a state measure which had reduced property taxes and thus school funding) cut-backs — and “Our Town” callbacks for the part of George. George lost.

And now I recall there was yet another Becky on the scene around this time; I was already out of Center and into student government (serving as the appointed student body president of Mission High School), which is where I met a robust blonde girl named Becky whose last name I can’t remember, but I do remember the party she had, in the inner Mission and where, being me — thinking that to win a girl I needed an angle, or handicap — I profited from a dispute between a sophomore in Center, who we’ll call Anna Kabata, and her boyfriend that sent the boyfriend storming away and Anna sobbing gently on the front steps, where I joined her and faster than you can say I’ll-take-a-tongue-burrito-with-lots-of-salsa had insinuated my hand onto her tight-jean covered lap, where it joined hers and we were soon French kissing. (Anna was a student at the Immaculate Conception Academy and no I didn’t make that school’s name up.) I didn’t exactly scorn Anna later; rather just didn’t pursue it or responded lukewarmly to her pursuing it, or perhaps did not return her calls, which probably got deformed, either by Anna or the boyfriend, because after a Center performance — which might well have been of “Our Town,” starring Becky N. — the boyfriend, apparently back with Anna, came after me on the Mission High front steps, pushing me and shouting, “You leave Annie alone!” with fortunately Brad K. (Chip was also there) intervening to calm him down. (Brad was the older brother of Biff K., an elementary school buddy who resembled the middle son on the Brady Bunch, and who — Brad — at that time had a thing for younger women, including Felicia. When a “Lucie K.” showed up recently on my “You might know” Facebook friends list, looking kind of like a female version of Biff ((whose name like his brother’s I made up)) 50 years later, I wondered if she was he.)

So now we’re a year after Anna and back to Becky H. and freshman year at Princeton. Becky, a skinny girl from Florida with a button nose and a kind of chipmunk face (in the cute sense, not the buck teeth sense; if she had pimples, they added to her girlish appeal) with a birthmark on her dimpled cheeks, and glasses, like me had never seen snow before, so when the first one came to Princeton that fall we both went scurrying out of the Princeton Inn College dining room overlooking the golf course (where Amaury Blaine, Fitzgeral’s stand-in in ‘Paradise,’ had also roamed, so we were now officially in the Princeton movie), ignoring the haughty East Coast kids’ pooh-poohing that “that’s not snow, it’s sleet,” to make snow angels in the sandpit. It must have been a subsequent golf course excursion — because what I’m about to describe took place scrambling around in the sandpit and was more hot than cold — where Becky and I had an intense make-out session. I can still remember her pressing up against me in her crinkly silk blouse. Becky soon dumped me — we had the Talk, in the dormitory room that I shared with Brian Fontleroy Jones (not his real name and sorry Becky, I can’t change yours in a memoir that is putatively devoted to the Beckys who have graced my life, including you), an ROTC student who’d alarmed me when I’d showed up for school after he’d already deposited his things, among them a copy of “Mein Kampf” — explaining that she was getting back together with Bruce, her childhood sweetheart and a sophomore at Princeton; I can’t remember if our make-out session just happened in an interval in their relationship or was intended to make Bruce jealous and get back together with Becky. (I guess it’s a good idea I left out her last name; according to the Tigernet web site, Becky also became a lawyer.)

Becky H. and I would actually remain friends. The golf course skirmish was in the fall of 1979, and we were still pals in the Summer of 1984. I had left Princeton (the school) in a ruckus in January (responding to a dean’s threat to expel me if I didn’t withdraw voluntarily by telling him to “Go ahead, make my day” ((when a Princeton professor, Victor Bromberg I think, told us in a lecture for his course on the Modern European Novel that the hero of Sartre’s “Nausea” sees himself as if he’s in a movie “and of course, no normal person would think that way,” I’d known I was in trouble)), words which would come back to haunt me 35 years later when, after telling me I was eligible for re-admission, a new translation program having sparked my interest, and setting my re-application guns blazing — I’d even sent a re-application letter accompanied by a movie poster image of James Stewart Class of ’33 in “Destry Rides Again” — one of the presumably by then retired dean’s successors reversed herself and said “Whoops, we found a note from Dean… saying to never let you back in again.”) and spent the Spring semester of 1984 writing full-time as a freelancer for the New York Times, covering Princeton even if Princeton was no longer covering me. Pissed when they finally declined to hire me as a staff writer (“The fuckers,” reacted my editor at the Times’s Sunday insert the New Jersey Weekly, Richard Roberts, when I told him), I’d decided to try my luck in Austin, which I’d heard good things about from my long-time (since before Rooftop days) best friend Adam Friedman (he’d played Jesus in “Godspell,” though not under that fabricated moniker, and continues to be my own personal Jesus, resurrected in my dreams long after our friendship dissolved, as recently as one last night in which I didn’t seem to have enough time to get the caca off, and shuffled from toilet to toilet in the Friedman home as Adam prepared to go out with someone else; absent a successor with legs, the part of the best friend, dream-wise, will forever be played by Adam), who’d spent a magical year there earlier and been in a relationship with a sweet curly blonde-haired suntanned slightly older woman we’ll call Janna. Adam was gone but Janna was still there in Austin in the Spring of 1984 and so was my Princeton best friend who we’ll call Scott (also grew up to become a lawyer), who really deserves to be worked in here alongside all the Beckys. Scott was the first Republican my age I ever met — waiting in line for dinner at PIC — and yet we became political allies, at Princeton at that time Scott’s student government faction being more ethical in my view than the presumedly liberal side. (For the Nassau Weekly, the new alternative student mag of which I’d become the founding managing editor by the Spring, 1980, of freshman year, I’d write, with the guidance of editor Don Hawthorne and a brilliant already professional writer for Sports Illustrated, Alexander Wolff, “Machine Politics comes to Princeton,” after editors at the daily rag, the Princetonian, including Elena Kagan ((yes, that Elena Kagan)), endorsed, for the first time in 147 years, a candidate for student government chairman to succeed Eliot Spitzer ((yes, that Eliot Spitzer, the one who went on to become and resign as governor of New York)); many of them belonged to the same eating club.)

By the time I’d returned to Princeton after a nearly two-year break (in January 1982), Scott, wearing his red hair longish and sporting a paunch, had had it with politics and switched to geology. By junior year he was holeing up in the “Rock Mag Lab,” an isolated, semi-underground building where I’d get his attention by stomping on the roof. One evening, fueled by a box of Entenmann’s chocolate chip cookies, we rambled over to the cemetary in the Black section of town and had a moral knock-down drag-out, with the ghosts of Grover Cleveland, Jonathan Edwards, Aaron Burr (the vice president who challenged and killed Alexander Hamilton in a duel, for which, his descendent Samuel Burr would tell me later when I interviewed him for the New Brunswick Home News while I was still a student, Burr had gotten a bum rap; “It was all rumours spread by the Hamilton crowd!”), and Paul Tulane (his statue, so legend had it, turned away from the university by his instructions after Princeton refused to rename itself Tulane when he made a donation) looking on. Scott was upset because I didn’t have a five-year plan. I can’t remember my retort to this, but I do remember that after we parted, when I returned to my single room in Lourie-Love, I found a paper plate under my door on which was written in pencil:

“Who is John Gault? Your friend, Scott.” (Perhaps accompanied outside the door by a copy of Ayn Rand’s “Atlas Shrugged.”)

We must have worked it out, at least for a time, because Scott was one of the reasons, or anyway my welcome wagon, when I had had enough with Princeton in May 1984 and decided to try out Austin, where Scott, now graduated, had set up shop as a baker with Scott’s Sister’s Scones. They were just as scrumptious. I’m not sure why or how Scott had gone from pre-law to pre-rock to gourmet goodies, but it seemed to fit him (Scott: This is not meant as an insult.); indeed it enabled him to encounter his wife. (The Texas girl angle reminds me that I left out Scott’s instrumental role in my losing my virginity. This happened at Princeton but Princeton being Princeton, I had to import a girl, and Paul always doing things the hard way, or the roundabout way — sometimes you have to take the long way around to get back home ((Albee in “The Zoo Story,” which I still haven’t acted in but which has not stopped acting on me)) — instead of finding my quarry in Sweetbriar like any normal Princeton boy ((“Princeton boys do it with their socks on” — Rosanna Arquette, in “Sweet 16,” filmed in Princeton when I was there, and yes, I met her too, DJing the San Francisco wedding of another high school theater chum in 1992, where I struck out with l’Arquette while waiting behind her in the strudel line)), instead I went to ((I mean looked in; I didn’t actually go there)) Dallas, where I’d struck up a correspondence with a girl I’ll re-name Christina who I’d met when we were both part of a national, State Department sponsored student delegation to Israel in high school ((where, besieged by several comely Israeli girls, none of whom fortunately for you were named Becky, I swallowed the Kool-Aid and didn’t regurgitate it until 1982, when Israel invaded Lebanon the first time)). I’d employed a reluctant Scott to personally deliver a bunch of roses to Christina after I’d done or said something that hurt her. It must have worked because Christina responded by sending me a life-sized cut-out Ziggy doll on whom she’d written “You make my loins ache.” Christina would finally come to Princeton during Spring break of 1983 — we met in Penn Station, where I was coming back from visiting Adam’s sister Marjorie with him on the coast in Kittery, Maine. She may not have been named Becky, but I remember how warm I felt sitting next to Christina ’round midnight on the bus — I’m not sure why it was a bus in lieu of the Dinky, the two-car train that normally ferried us from Princeton Junction to the Wa-Wa market on the edge of campus — from New York as we passed the tennis court on the way to chez moi in Lourie-Love. I remember I took a shower down the hall and then sat next to Christina on the narrow army-cot width bed, in my long-johns and a bathrobe, Christina leafing through my “History of the Cinema” book on my bed until we started up. We must have stayed in bed — oh: Christina was about 20, I not yet 22 and yes, I lost my virginity at nearly 22 ((I’ve just remembered another, earlier Princeton golf course excursion, also with a girl from Center,”Tush,”, by then, 1979/80, studying acting at NYU and visiting me in Princeton and her responding to my determination to wait until marriage to sleep with someone with “You’re going to make a lot of women unhappy”; later Tush — who at Center had played my mom in “The Diary of Anne Frank,” in which of course I played Anne’s boyfriend — declared that she was ending our friendship because (((this is a paraphrase; it’s been more than 40 years))) “You’re too boring.”)) — we must have stayed in bed all of Saturday, my finally acquiescing to Christina’s gentle request that we do something else besides… by taking her to Philadelphia on Sunday. When Spring break was over and Christina left to return to Dallas and I told a Princeton friend from California, Laurel or Lauren, who asked how my week had been ((actually I think I asked her how her week had been to get her to ask how mine had been)), “It was the best week in my life,” Laurel or Lauren replied haughtily, “I don’t have best weeks.”

I don’t remember why I broke it off with Christina, but I do remember her in her tight black leather jacket in tears as we were saying goodbye on the lawn in front of the bronze Tigers guarding Nassau Hall, where the Constitution had been written ((wrote about that for the Times too)) 200 years earlier. And going to Robert Fagles’s Tragedy seminar that week, where we were reading “Romeo and Juliet” or more likely “Hamlet” given the parallel with his treatment of Ophelia, making a reference to my romantic turpitudes to draw a parallel with the play and Robert Fagles, the most preeminent translator of the Greeks of the epoch, not disdaining the plebiean reference but treating it as completely pertinent.)

But let’s get back to Becky H. (If I haven’t already lost you by being too Balzacian; I’m wading through “The Human Comedy” now, after scoring a complete mint condition 24-volume guilded set from 1959 at a brocante or antique fair here in my village in the Dordogne in the Southwest of France for 20 Euros, determined to find one novel among the trove where the sexism — bref, according to Balzac the dream of girls is to fulfill the dream of boys even if they have to die doing so — or the abundance of counts and countesses and vicomptes before all of whom Balzac genuflects doesn’t put me off. I thought I’d found my candidate in “Splendors and Miseries of the Courtesans,” but then made the mistake of reading the preface, where I was told, “You can’t understand ‘The Splendors and Miseries of the Courtesans’ if you haven’t read at least 10 of the other books, especially ‘A Shadowy Affair,'” which turns out to be not just a shadowy affair, but yet another affair involving the various complicated alliances in Revolutionary-Napoleonic-Restoration France ((I recently added it up and realized that France may well have had its revolution in 1789, but since then and not counting President Macron with all his article 49s which effectively cut off legislative debate whenever he thinks he’s about to lose a vote, since 1789 France has spent something like 74 years under some form of Revolutionary, Napoleonic, Royalist, or Vichyist autocracy or at least benevolent monarchy, albeit often with a legislature)) and right when you think the action is about to start — various personnages having convened in the salon of an ancient chateau in the Lorraine ((as in quiche)), where over a hearth in the castle the good guys — here in Balzac’s view the Royalists, whose kids are plotting to overthrow Napoleon — are sitting around playing a parlor game called “Boston,” the Tea Party version of Monopoly which was apparently the rage among French Royalists of the time, and every time you think that the counter-counter-revolutionaries and the gendarmes are about to storm the castle, a new character enters the room, and Balzac has to tell you his life story. Plumbing through “A Shadowy Affair” nonetheless — the intrigue, ultimately involving a Napoleonic agent framing the Royalist twins for assassinating a Napoleonic senator because the agent has not forgiven the twins’ cousin/fiancé, another countess, for spitting on him, is actually compelling — and landing in yet another Balzacian discourse on the intricacies of French law during the transition from Revolutionary to Napoleonic law ((the famous Code)), I abandoned all hope of finding some secourse for my own worries for France when Balzac explained how at the time, around 1814, the notion of “crime” had been eliminated from the law-books, replaced by that of “delit,” which thanks to President Macron’s new immigration law, stoked by the bogeyman of an immigrant invasion invented by the extreme right and right-wing parties ((not M. Macron, who should know better)), abbetted by an irresponsible mainstream media, that is completely fabricated ((if you don’t believe me, check out François Heran’s courses at the College de France, the latest of which addresses the links between colonialization and migration, https://www.college-de-france.fr/fr/agenda/cours/colonisation-et-migration/le-legs-colonial-en-question)) is what migrants in “irregular situations” are now liable to be charged with, in other words if we were back in 1814 undocumented immigrants would be considered in the same penal category ((classification of infraction-wise)) as Royalists ((who, indeed, were sometimes referred to as immigrants for leaving France after the Revolution dispossed them)) suspected of assassinating senators.)

… Alors, before that Proustian parenthesis about my Balzacian tendencies and impending embastillement, we were talking about Becky H., the golf course make-out to break-up Becky, and how nearly five years after that golf course idyll, in the Summer of 1984, we were still friends. I’d just returned to Princeton (the town, or rather the borough, then presided over by Barbara Boggs Sigmund, a real character who I also wrote about for the Times, daughter to Congresspeople Hale and Lindy Boggs and sister to Cokie Roberts, and known for her irrascably irreverent style and multi-color eye-patches — she lost one to cancer), Austin having not worked out, but not before an aborted affair with Janna that ended with Adam, on a fly-by in Austin looking for consolation from Janna, who he’d broken up with a year before and who, still smarting from that hurt, had been crying on my shoulder with the expected results (me falling in love with my best friend’s former girl), with Adam, then, looking for consolation from Janna after being kicked out of the North Carolina School of the Arts (or rather not passed on to the next year). Unbeknownst to Adam I’d switched sides (et oui, le Benedict Arnold de l’amour, c’est moi).

Things finally boiled over while we were driving home in Janna’s truck after a bug-infested meal in a restaurant overlooking Barrow Dam, and I, a bit drunk, said, meaning it as an homage to Janna, that she reminded me of Sonia in “Crime in Punishment.” “You know, the prosititute.” I’d meant this just to identify the character, the association being not with her trade but with Sonia’s having sacrificed herself for Raskolnikov’s redemption (as Adam in my emotionally jaundiced view now seemed to be asking Janna to sacrifice her emotional well-being to comfort him). This presumed that Janna and Adam had read the book, which they or at least she apparently had not, so Janna thought I was calling her a whore, and Adam sided with her. Things must have calmed down enough for me to make my play after Adam left and I tried to, on a couch in my $215 flat (prices have gone up in Austin since), just before I left Austin, but Janna demurred, for, she said, that reason. (I lost Janna a second time when, after a reunion which started promisingly in 1987 when Janna moved to San Francisco and we broke in my first apartment in my home-town (($450/month and two blocks from Golden Gate Park)) with a Thanksgiving dinner which involved racing in Janna’s truck over the hill to the Friedmans in Eureka Valley to cook the turkey and the pecan pie as my oven wasn’t yet hooked up, we somehow accidentally ended up having the same therapist, with catastrophic consequences for our friendship.)

… So we’re back, after Austin, with Becky H. in Princeton in the Summer of 1984, also after a debacle which we won’t get into in New Brunswick (where I did get to write another story for Richard Roberts and the Times, about a week-end conference at Rutgers about women’s rights where I interviewed a fetching feminist, embarassed that, the Times being the Times, I had to ask her, “Is it ‘Miss’ or ‘Mrs.’?”), and I’m hanging out with Becky, who’s just graduated and is living with another girl, Anyta, who had been my neighbor at Princeton Inn College when I returned to Princeton in 1982, and one evening we get into one of those uncontrollable laughing spells, the kind where just when you think you’ve recovered someone makes another joke and you’re off again — where it’s actually starting to hurt — probably fueled by the bottomless blender pina colatas Anyta’s been mixing up. (This is happening at Spellman, a dreary grey concrete dormitory of apartments named after a minor Rockefeller relative and reserved for seniors because they all have kitchens, located at the end of campus near the Dinky station separated from PIC only by the Wah-Wah market, and also where I had gotten really plastered for only the second time in my life two years earlier; Don Hawthorne — the Nassau editor — had asked me to edit his senior thesis. Because it was on Hemingway, I’d decided it would help my editorial authenticity to get into the spirit of things by profiting from Don’s vast bookshelf full of spirits, unfortunately forgetting another Albee maxim, “Never mix, Never Worry” ((“Who’s afraid of Virginia Woolf?”)))

So now we’re still, a couple of excruciating Balzac flashbacks and one political harangue later, in Spellman in the Summer of 1984, on a communal laughing so uncontrollably it’s starting to hurt fit with Becky and Anyta, when someone reads — perhaps on the label of a dish cleanser — something in the ingredients about “feminine hygiene” (now I remember, the laughing was hurting because I had strep throat and we were looking for an appropriate remedy, the candidate we found including the label warning “not to be used for feminine hygiene”) and every time we think we’ve recovered from the laughing bouts, one of us exclaims “Feminine Hygiene!” and we’re back on the merry go round.

But let’s stick to me and Beckys.

Our relationship — our friendship and Becky H’s importance as a marker, as a signifyer for me, here in inspiring the first occasion I had to manifest a moral value that would henceforth become essential if not requisite to me, personal loyalty — assumed another dimension (for some reason I associate this one with a conversation at a Princeton restaurant called “The Alchemist” which I’d not thought about for 40 years, once again putting the lie to something Joyce Carol Oates said more recently on French public radio ((American authors often say things on French public radio they would never say on American public radio because they can’t imagine that any Americans — let alone one of their former students now living as a recluse on the Street of the Cemetery in a semi-rural Cro-mignon village in SW France — is listening, as when the recently late Russell Banks, another of my ex-Princeton profs, interviewed right after the terrorist massacres in Paris of January and November 2015, told French State-run radio that the nihilists who perpetrated them were no different than the abolitionist John Brown, who I know something about, having played the heroes of both the North and South in Stephen Vincent Benet’s “John Brown’s Body” at Center)) about how, according to Joyce, what we think are memories are actually just memories of memories, i.e. events that have been in regular rotation in our memory mix since the moment they actually happened — but I swear I haven’t thought about “The Alchemist” in 40 years.). Anyway, my relationship with Becky mid-wifed a new important signifier — a signifier of who I am and the values I prize — earlier in 1984 when Bruce, Becky’s childhood sweetheart with whom she’d gotten back together after or perhaps with the help of our freshman year golf course adventure in 1979, and who with Scott was one of my best friends at Princeton, he was a handsome sweety, Bruce had acceeded to the demands of a new girlfriend to cut Becky out of his life — to stop being friends with her. An upset Becky must have told me, because I told Bruce that if he did this to Becky our friendship was also over. He did and it was… (which perhaps explains why he’s not responded to my Facebook friend request).

The next to last time I saw Becky H. — it seems she visited me several years later in San Francisco — was the following year, the Spring of 1985. After returning to San Francisco at the end of the Summer of 1984 and working for a semester and a half as an after-school teacher at Live Oak School (where at least three other relationships that would become important later in my life were also seeded, but we’ll stick to Beckys for once), I’d returned to Central Jersey as a reporter for the Home News and was living in a new housing complex in Plainsboro (nearby and in the same prized zip code as Princeton, which had made it a hub for out of control development), which I was also covering, called “Fox Run Drive”; Becky and Anyta, about to or just graduated, were living next door in another, “Pheasant Hollow” (of course no pheasants or foxes were to be seen for miles around). I remember we watched Live Aid together in a pizza joint across the street from Fox Run owned by a cool Puerto Rican dude (Anyta was Puerto Rican). And now I remember where the Alchemist comes in; this Princeton restaurant is where I sold my first car — which I had needed to get from Fox Run to the paper’s office in New Brunswick and to tool around my territory, Plainsboro, Princeton Township, and Montgomery Township — a ’69 Cadillac Seville, complete with tail fins, in other words the Batmobile, which I’d bought used from my mom’s first boyfriend after the divorce’s Princeton pal’s father in Chester, Pennsylvania, for $300 — to Becky, for $25, after I left the paper; she later sold it for scrap metal. If I lost the caddy, before I left Jersey again I gleaned a mantra for life. Covering a college graduation in Montgomery Township — all the grads had donned Tom Cruise “Risky Business” shades and tossed them in the air upon matriculation — in June 1985, when I would have graduated from Princeton, I was able to benefit from the advice of the speaker, a successful female business executive, who transmitted this counsel from her father: When you’re confronted with an obstacle, ask yourself: “Where’s the opportunity here?”

My last Becky — who was actually part of a concurrent triumvirate (dare I say bevy?) of Beckys, who because they all danced in the same company, Pilobolus, went by, respectively, Becca, Rebecca, and Becky so the directors could tell them apart and who were all important to me in different ways — Becky J, who I was in a relationship with, I’ve already written a long piece about, after learning in 2014 about her death in 2013 (by accident, for which I upbraided Becca and Rebecca.), at the age of 49, from cancer. Rebecca Stenn, who I met shortly after I moved to New York in June 1995 to take an editing job at Dance magazine, becoming its news editor when my boss, Joe Mazo, died of a heart attack (I saw, if not exactly discovered, the body, frozen inside the entry to his Upper West Side digs in the position of trying to tie a second shoe-lace, the head grotesquely bloated and looking more like a monster’s than a man’s, and which had stayed at home to rot for more than 24 hours before anyone thought to check on Joe, remaining in the room with the corpse and my editor for two hours as we tried to coax two very freaked out felines out from under a decrepit bed frame), wrote for me (Rebecca Stenn did) at DM and thus, after I was fired by DM the day before Thanksgiving two and a half years later, in 1997, became the prototype for the Dance Insider artist-writer (she was/is also a talented choreographer in her own right) when the magazine was founded in June 1998 by a group of professional journalists and dance artists. We were close as friends but I am not yet ready to talk about that one as not enough time has elapsed since we last fell apart as friends. (Except to note this serendipitous irony: Rebecca held her wedding — at which I also DJ’d, natch, in May 2000 just before moving to France — at the Clemente Orosco Cultural Center in a former synagogue on the Lower East Side… named after a legendary New Yorican poet… who was Anyta’s grandfather.) Becca, who I also had a sort of Becky-related ricochet crush on for a time, was the Dance Insider’s first cover girl, captured by Jamie Phillips in all her bare-breasted beauty (I highlight this because it immediately set the DI apart from everyone else and pointed up that I could now do what neither the Times nor Dance Magazine would ever let me do, portray real dancers’ bodies and tell dancers’ true stories; if you don’t like the news, go out and make some of your own. For our last print issue, our bare-breasted back cover girl was Martha Graham, photographed by Imogen Cunningham, whose grandson provided us with the silver albumen prints, a scoop).

As for Becky J., the one with whom I had a real romantic relationship (I remember roaming through Central Park after we’d hit a difficult pass, standing in front of the Lewis Carroll tribute statue of Alice feeding animals at her feet, and visualizing me and Becky bringing our children there), it feels like cheating to simply paste my previous story, my memorial to Becky, into this piece, as that story was not generated by the same vibe as this one, but perhaps it’s appropriate (spirit of this piece-wise) to share a Becky episode not included in that memorial (with the promise of no more extended detours into extra-Becky territory):

After we broke up the first time (Becky had given me the Talk, looking so good in a short black dress as I cried in my pie on a Chelsea terrace it was borderline cruel), and then briefly got back together, Becky was on the road performing with Pilobolus in Canada (this all happened in Spring/Summer 1997). I asked a Canuck pal from my days working for Reuters in San Francisco (from 1987 through 1995) — he’s the guy who taught me what a micro-chip was, about an hour before I went to cover a trial in San Jose over whether Intel or AMD owned the copyright to a specific microchip the ruling on which could move markets — Russell Blinch, who by then had returned to Canada, to surprise Becky with a bunch of Gladiolas after a performance in Ottawa… which was also a way to get two people who had been important to me at different epochs in my life to meet. Becky called me — or maybe I called her — after the show, so it was late, and we must have talked until four in the morning, she in her Canadian hotel and me in my W. 8th Street Village digs next to Electric Lady, where Jimi had recorded “Roomful of Mirrors” and Carly “Anticipation” (and “You’re so Vague”), not to mention “It was So Easy Then,” “Safe and Sound” (“If, through all this madness, we can stick together, we’re safe… and sound. The world’s just inside out and upside down”) and “Grown-Up” (“And I’ve just gotten older. I’ve just gotten older. And the little ones call me… a grown-up.”). We missed each other. I could tell it was hard for Becky. Finally I — turning for once from the cared for to the caring for — gently suggested that we hang up now so Becky could get some sleep.

“Last night at a friend’s house a little girl was there
She stood in the doorway playing with her hair
She looked up at me
as if I could do no wrong
As I got up to sing my song

I sang it with a shiver
in my throat and in my knees
Feeling just as small as….
a thistle in the breeze
But the child’s imagination
carried me along
And saw me through my song

Now I’ve just gotten older
I’ve just gotten older
And the little ones call me
a grownup.”

— Carly Simon, “Grown-Up.”

(Updated 10h00) Je vous salut Godard: Father of Nouvelle Vague cinema takes own life in Switzerland home in “assisted suicide”

by Paul Ben-Itzak
Copyright 2022 Paul Ben-Itzak

Pour Sidney.

“He was a poet.”

–Roman Goupil, film director and former assistant to Jean-Luc Godard, September 13, 2022, France Culture radio

SAINT-CYPRIEN, France (Dordogne) — The first time I saw a film by Jean-Luc Godard — the co-founder of the Nouvelle Vague and its principal theorist, who took his own life yesterday surrounded by his entourage at his home in Switzerland at the age of 91, after 72 years of writing about and making movies — in Paris, I was shocked that the movie, Godard’s latest release fresh from the 2001 Cannes festival, was projected in the tiniest room on the tiniest screen I had ever seen in the Lucernaire theater-movie complex on the rue Notre Dame des Champs, equidistant from Camus’s former digs and the Luxembourg Gardens. Besides me and my actress-producer-clown friend Sabine, there were eight other people in the audience. I was freshly arrived from New York, where any Godard film typically generated lines around the block and sold out for weeks. I, who didn’t know any French beyond “Sorry, I don’t speak French,” spent the next two hours of “Eloge d’Amour” — which begins at the end of the story and proceeds towards the beginning, with Godard, ever the determinedly contrarian experimentalist at 70 years old, shooting the first half in black and white film and the second in color digital — on the edge of my seat, enraptured. Sabine spent it tearing her hair out, exasperated. (Godard: “Directing a film isn’t just putting a camera in front of a stage; you have to use the camera like a pen.” The images alone more than sated me.)

When I recounted this experience later, on a Montparnasse café terrace, to a French filmmaker I’d met in New York after a projection, at the United Nations, of his documentary trailing the choreographer Carolyn Carlson around Paris (memorably capturing the American transplant frolicking around Carpeaux’s Fountain of Four Goddesses in the Marco Polo Explorer park which abuts the Luxembourg), he explained that Sabine’s response to the French filmmaker (who he insisted wasn’t French, but Swiss; never mind that JLG was born here) was typical among his compatriots, who found Godard’s films obscure and head-banging-against-the-wall frustrating. (Somewhat contradictorily, in the same conversation my companion insisted that for every two French art films imported to the United States, the Americans insisted on foisting eight Hollywood imbecilities on France. Or something like that; this was 21 years ago.)

Later that year, when a bad case of diarrhea drove me running to the nearest pharmacy, where I was directed to the nearest doctor, I knew I was in the right place when, mounting to the fifth floor of the building to the medical ‘cabinet’ Dr. Harold Bongart shared with his dentist brother Dr. Sidney Bongart on the cusp of the Grands Boulevards memorialized by Pissarro (“Winter Morning on the Boulevard Montmartre,” my favorite painting), looking out across the rue Hauteville at a row of zinc rooftops, I found myself in a waiting-room where a poster of Satchmo blowing his cheeks out as a delighted audience looked on faced off against a poster of Jean Seberg hawking the New York Herald Tribune on the Champs l’Elysée as Jean-Paul Belmondo tried to score with her, the classic scene from Godard’s breakthrough 1959 hit “Breathless.” The poster’s presence in this office was later explained when Dr. Bongart the dentist told me that their mother was American (like Seberg), their father French. (When Sidney retired 18 years later — we were on a first-name basis by then — I scored us both DVD copies of “Bout de Souffle” at a name-your-price book sale at a collective café near the Pere Lachaise cemetery.)

Catching the movie a second or third time a couple of years later in the Cinematheque Francaise’s intimate movie house practically next door to my dentist/doctor’s on the Boulevards, when Belmondo’s petty gangster, betrayed by Seberg’s flighty American (Belmondo, expiring, to Seberg: “C’est dégueulasse” ((rotten)): Seberg to the police officer who’s just shot him: “C’est quoi, ‘dégueulasse’?”) exhales his final cigarette smoke after he’s already dead, I was the only one in the theater laughing.

For if Godard’s themes are often heavy, his heroes leaving a trail of carnage behind them, or even becoming carnage (or even, as in the 1967 “Week-End,” carne asada for anarchist cannibals), they’re also riddled with comedy. Sometimes the comedy is a prelude, as when Anna Karina, Sami Frey, and Claude Brasseur, playing young Parisians with 20 minutes to kill before they rob (and, unintentionally, kill) Karina’s rich employer in the 1964 “Bande a Part” and realizing that none of them has ever seen the Mona Lisa, decide to spend it slipping and sliding through the halls of the Louvre. Sometimes it’s an interlude, as in the half-hour vacation traffic jam sequence — reputedly the longest trailer camera segment in cinema history — in the 1967 “Week-End” that temporarily stymies the bickering couple protagonists’ trip to the house of the man’s aunt they plan to kill to inherit her money before he gets killed by the cannibals and she eats him for dinner.

Sometimes, though, the comedy and the tragedy are inspired by the same action, even the same decision. In the 1965 “Pierrot le Fou” (spoiler alert — if that concept can even apply to a work of art which can be read and appreciated backwards or forwards), Belmondo, after fatally shooting his fleeing lover Karina for betraying him (and trying to have him killed) and gently setting her down as she murmurs, “Forgive me, Pierrot”(to which he replies, for the last time, “Je m’appel Ferdinand”), unsuccessfully trying to telephone his daughter to bid her adieu and hanging up when his wife answers, painting his face red and blue, climbing to the top of an isolated ile in the middle of the Mediterranean, wrapping a band of dynamite around his head and lighting it, declares (something like) “Merde, je suis en train de faire un gross connerie” and tries to snuff out the fuse — too late, the dynamite, Belmondo, and everything but the azure sea and the Sun-infused horizon exploding and being obliterated.

“On se retrouvera,” (we’ll find each other) whispers the voice of Karina, who died in 2019.

“Au soleil,” answers the voice of Belmondo, who died last year.

Ils se sont tous les trois retrouvé — au soleil.