Readers’ Forum
By Edward Rapp, Sept 1, 2006

Eighty-nine and counting

People don’t die at 70 years of age the way they are “supposed to.” They die at 89; both my wife and I are that old and we can feel it coming on. That’s OK. If you don’t die at 89, you are likely to spend a few more years wishing you had.

I don’t know what the figures are these days about death taking place more and more in hospitals as a result of this new life expectancy. I was just in a hospital in Texas, and it seemed to me there were lots of eighty-niners in there with me. All the patients looked like they were 104, so I decided to get out of the place before the treatment started. A wonderful nurse, concerned about what would happen if we relied on home cures, ran after us out onto the street to give me counsel on what to do about my intestinal blockage. We drove home and took the cure she was kind enough to share with us. That was a close call.

It is not like you can’t or shouldn’t live on after 89. A few great men have served as models for us of a lesser breed. George Bernard Shaw lived to 95. A fellow writer, I think it was Graham Greene, visited Shaw when the renowned socialist and playwright was 94. They had a delightful chat at Shaw’s thatched cottage in the English countryside. When the visit ended, Greene bade him farewell and walked a few steps down the road. Then he turned to have one last look at the great man as he tottered back to his cottage. But Shaw was not tottering; he was running. He still had things he wanted to do. Pablo Casals was another successful nonagenarian, as was Arthur Rubinstein.

But to show you what problems face all us mortals at 95, Casals had just completed a marvellous, long cello concert—a solo recital—at the University of Puerto Rico. He seemed to be playing in a trance with all that splendid music surrounding him. The applause was tremendous. I happened to be backstage with his wife, Marta. She embraced him as he walked into her arms, and then she said, “Wonderful, Pablito. Now come along and go pee-pee.”

We all have one shot at death. It is not all that important; it just feels that way. It can’t be all that bad, compared, for example, with what would happen if we did not die. Many doctors want to be the first to say they found the way to eternal life. That is something they should not tamper with. Let it go at eighty-nine. And make some exceptions for the exceptional ones.





Editorial
By Suzanne Ludekens, Editor in Chief, Atención San Miguel

The August 25 publication of the Global Justice column “Report from Palestine” by Mike Rivage-Seul has generated much discussion, not only of the complex situation in the Middle East but also about what content is appropriate for Atención. In the 16 years I have lived in San Miguel and four years I have worked at Atención I have observed many changes in the town and people who form this unique community. A growing, diverse readership composed of people from around the globe places the newspaper in a unique position. How to respect the many different opinions and interests of a diverse expat community living in a small town in central Mexico? As editor, I have felt it imperative to open the pages of the newspaper to the many “voices” of this community, hence the evolution of the newspaper during the past 18 months. I have particularly focused on cultivating a larger and more comprehensive coverage of local news written by Atención staff reporters Tania Noriz and Jesús Ibarra, and with contributions from variou
s nonprofit groups and local writers. The result has been a more informative and balanced newspaper that reflects the involved and participatory nature of the community. During that time, I have also chosen to exclude international issues from the newspaper unless an issue has an immediate bearing on sanmiguelenses or betters our understanding of our Mexican hosts. Printing “Report from Palestine” in the regular Global Justice column represents a failure to maintain the standards I have worked so arduously to establish.

To the members of community who feel personally offended by the article I offer an apology for publishing such an inflammatory piece. Such a difficult issue is best left in the hands of those with greater expertise in other media. I appreciate the eloquence and intellect of the responses that I have received. Those responses are printed on the following pages.


To those members of the community who feel the publication of the article represents an expression of the “Free Press” I wish also to apologize, because Atención should not seek to be what the mainstream US media are not. I believe Atención can, and will, operate by exemplary standards that are set by a caring, participatory community that values communication, understanding and compassion in all its relationships.

After intensive consultation, the newspaper’s editorial advisory board has decided to create an appropriate mission statement, develop clearer and strictly applied guidelines for contributors and actively seek quality and appropriate freelance contributions—all measures that we hope will ensure a consistently higher-quality publication.

The lesson to be learned (and I believe there is always a lesson in crisis and conflict) is that Atención San Miguel should evolve so that it represents and reflects the true interests of its contributors and community. 

With a refreshed commitment to serving all sanmiguelenses I look forward to presenting a better newspaper.



Letters

Send your letters to the editor to letters@atencionsanmiguel.org  Atención will not publish offensive or defamatory material.

Editor,

The following is my answer to Prof. Mike Rivage-Seul’s article (Atención, Aug. 25).

Having just read your article “Report from Palestine” I feel puzzled and surprised:

Should I begin my answer with your “logical analysis” presented to the reader? You write that this analysis is “simple,” and I agree and say it is simple and superficial. Or the way you report historical facts? I suspect that you called this part “historical analysis” knowing well that these facts have been twisted and manipulated to suit your thesis. Or should I tackle the high level of morality with which you justify suicide bombing? Or the amateurishly designed plan you call a solution that is detached from the reality of the subject matter? If you and the organization under which banner you write this article are really concerned with the welfare of the Arabs in the Territories, put your efforts into teaching them how to value life, how to educate their children toward love and respect instead of hatred and destruction and show them that resources should be invested for the improvement to their living standard instead of armaments and terrorism. Israel has always wanted to assist them in any way possible 
to improve the quality of their life, but one cannot help people who do not want to be helped. Your solution is a good plan to perpetuate their tragic stance and surely will create a new tragedy for the Israelis, people who for 60 years have lived under fire and terrorism* and still have succeeded in making the desert bloom. They have advanced in the different sciences and have set a good example for any society that wants to live under a true democratic regime. This is why I feel puzzled. 

But I am going to begin with the vast and what appears to be impressive knowledge that you have accumulated during your three-week trip. You do agree with me, I hope, that for lack of supplying us with more data regarding an additional thorough research that you may have made on the subject of the Israeli-Arab conflict, other than your visit to three Arab countries, the Palestinian Authority and Israel over the course of three weeks, I am permitted to assume that this is the extent of your research and study. I hope that you also agree with me that if you divided your attention equally over the five places, on the average you would have invested four days in each of the above-mentioned places. In this short period of time, you investigated the conflict and reached conclusions and recommendations.

On the other hand, for a close to a century, experts in all related fields—historians, theologians, politicians and economists who, collectively, probably spent untold fortunes—have been trying to reach out to the parties and find a solution, with no success. 

How much credit does this study of yours merit? It hardly merits being addressed one argument at a time although I would have loved to do that. But there isn’t time or space in this paper to do so. However to better serve the readers I will touch on a few points: 

You write that virtually everyone in the Arab world sees Palestine as the taproot of tensions between Muslims and the west. They describe the Israeli invasion of Palestine in 1948 as “the Arab 9/11.” I don’t find in your article an Israeli reply to this claim. But to assist you and the readers, here’s the website where you can find some objective information regarding the partition of November 1947: 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1947_UN_Partition_Plan  and assurances that the Jewish people did not have to invade a territory that was allotted to them by the United Nations with an absolute majority. The recorded history shows that following the partition the local Arabs began with systematic attacks on Jewish settlements, and shortly thereafter, six Arab countries sent their armies to fight the newly born State of Israel with the declared purpose of throwing the Jews in the sea. 

About Deir Yassin, you write that Israeli terrorists (you seem to think that all Israelis are terrorists, yet the world has not yet heard of one) massacred 254 persons and threw their bodies in a well. Historical records (please consult the internet) show that during the 1948 war, a strong-armed Arab force was stationed in this village, cutting land connection between Tel Aviv and Jerusalem. A battle ensued, and Israeli soldiers using mobile loudspeakers asked civilians to leave and save themselves. One hundred twenty Arabs, some of whom were Iraqis, one Yugoslavian Moslem whose identity showed that earlier he was a soldier with the SS, and five Israelis were killed in this battle.

As for your findings that the Arabs are nice and peace-loving people who without the Israeli terrorists would leave the world alone, I suggest that you read the thesis of Dr. Alan Dershowitz, a well-known scholar who wrote books on the subject of this conflict; he also wrote that occupation does not result in terrorism, but the opposite: terrorism ends in occupation. You can find his writings on the internet. During the twenties and thirties the British army often had to fight Arab terrorists in Palestine. Israel at that time was not in existence.

I agree that Israel is stronger in armed forces and equipment. In fact, the Israeli army is stronger than all the Arab armies together, because if not, Israel would have been wiped off the map. But the IDF has made it clear that its mandate is more that of defense than of offense. There were several attempts by the Arab countries to wipe out Israel, all of which failed. Israel has always had its hand extended for peace; luckily, Egypt and Jordan agreed to sign peace treaties with her. Lebanon would have been next, but Lebanon’s loving sister Syria controlled the country with its army and massive numbers of armed terrorists.

I was surprised to read your thesis in our local paper. Here in peaceful San Miguel, I had hoped for a life free of bigotry and racism. 

Arie Arazi


*Have you read about the Fedayin? Those terrorists who regularly ambushed school buses and gunned down children and teachers together? Those were the same “peace-loving Palestinians” for whom you feel so sorry in your thesis. Please read more about the history of the conflict, I beg you.





Editor,

The regular August 25 Global Justice column by Mike Rivage-Seul titled “Report from Palestine” has sparked considerable controversy. We wish to make it clear that the views expressed in the column are those of the author, a valued participant in the life of the Center. 

The Center for Global Justice takes no position as an organization on the issues raised by Mike. Our column, which normally appears every third week, is open to all members of the Center for Global Justice to discuss issues important to the Center’s work and of general interest to our community. Through this column we seek to promote thought and debate and above all resolution of problems in building a new, just world. We invite comments on our columns at info@globaljusticecenter.org 

That is our position as representatives of other members and of the Center. Because many friends have been upset by Mike’s column, we also feel obliged to speak as individuals to them and our other neighbors here in San Miguel who have expressed similar responses to us.

Regarding the recent armed conflict in the mid-East, we are in full sympathy both with the Jewish mothers huddled in shelters in Haifa and with the Arab mothers huddled in the suburbs of Beirut. In working at the Center our aim is not to set people against people. On the contrary, it is to honor all victims of such unwarranted conflicts by creating a space in which enemies in battle can become adversaries in debate, aimed at honestly working out a better understanding by all sides. Because this is our overriding aim in pursuit of global justice, we regret the tone of Mike’s piece, which has been understood as demonizing—an interpretation we know was far from his intention. At the same time, we believe viewpoints critical of the standard one pushed in the mainstream media need to be heard.

We have come to learn in recent days that many in our community disagree with the views he expressed. We hope they will bring forth other perspectives on this matter in the spirit of a search for global justice. We persist in believing that persons of good will, able to listen to each other and hear new perspectives on issues considered settled, can in the long run find solutions even to seemingly intractable problems like this conflict. We will not be dissuaded from that faith.

Finally, we would like to express our strong support for Suzanne Ludekens and for her judgment as a newsperson and editor. By opening the pages of Atención to a variety of points of view, even sometimes unpopular ones, she has made this paper a lively and interesting venue for discussion and thought—an important contribution to this unique community of San Miguel. This is a very cosmopolitan town and deserves the kind of newspaper Atención has become.

Our message is, above all: While we seek global justice, we do not pretend to personify it. We have made mistakes. We expect we will make more in the years ahead. We count on our members, readers and neighbors to let us know when we fail in that pursuit. Meanwhile, we believe our films, discussions, field trips, internships, website (www.globaljusticecenter.org) and other programs make needed contributions to San Miguel’s cultural life and attractiveness. We hope you agree.

Betsy Bowman, Barry Devine, Cliff DuRand, Bob Stone 




Editor,

As both a Biblioteca board member and member of the Center for Global Justice I take exception to the article on Palestine published by Mike Rivage-Seul in the issue of August 25. As a Jew, the child of Holocaust survivors, some of whose family members were murdered in concentration camps in Germany and Poland, it pains me to read an article that is so simplistic when dealing with such a complex matter as the Middle East conflict.

Let me state right out that for over 35 years I have been highly critical of the policies of the State of Israel and as a result I have had to deal with being called either an “anti-Semite” (!) or a “self-hating Jew .” 

Obviously, I have also been extremely critical of the PLO, terror tactics, Arab states in the regions, etc. etc. So what should I make of an article that engages in one-sided demonization of an entire people—termed “Jewish-Israelis”—while ignoring the Israeli Peace movement and the diversity of opinion in Israel that even a cursory reading of the pages of Haaretz would reveal? 

Or that characterizes the wars of ’48, ’67 and ’73 as the “Arab World” (whatever that is) coming “to the assistance of its fellow Arabs in Palestine,” thereby ignoring regional power alignments as well as the extent to which the Palestinian cause may have been instrumentalized by the Egyptian and Syrian administrations to further their own interests? And finally, a ridiculous and basically irrelevant discussion of who is an anti-Semite? 

There is, in Israel, a new generation of historical scholars who are using recently declassified documents to explore critically the foundation myths of Israel and come to a richer and fairer understanding of such topics as the mass expulsion of the Arabs in 1948, the origins of the 1967 war and subsequent occupation (an occupation that one of the founders of Israel, David Ben-Gurion, warned against) and other issues that once were considered too hot to handle. A summary of many of these matters can be seen on a website of Jews for Justice in the Middle East, a site that has the goal of exposing information that can help in the formation of an equitable and just solution to a conflict that has resisted easy resolution: www.ifamericansknew.org/history/origin.html 

I have spoken with a number of my colleagues at the Center for Global Justice who agree with me that this article does not represent fairly our views, and I look forward to some of their comments on the subject.

Gregory Diamant



Editor,

For the time being, I would like to take issue in just one area of the scholarly article written by Mike Rivage-Seul on “Jewish Israel” as distinguished from Arab Israel.

The scholar changes the historically acknowledged meaning of anti-Semitism as the hatred and slaughter of Jews and gives it another meaning, enlightening us with the “newfound” knowledge that Arabs are also Semites and therefore Jews are anti-Semites, and he leaves it there, as though he covered 2000 years of the reality of anti-Semitism. Without hesitation, he groups all Jews as the people who hate Arabs, as though we Jews were of one mind. He does not know that three Jews together have four points of view.

Let me tell him that he, a US citizen, supports the war in Iraq. How do I know? I’m a professor of knowledge—that’s how.

Years ago, when I discovered that Arabs were Semites, I also discovered that people who put other people into stereotypic molds are either lazy or prejudiced or sloppy thinkers.

His handling of that subject puts into question the objectivity of his thesis.

No, I will not call him an anti-Semite. He may use it against me.

If I were anti-Roman Catholic, I would accuse the Roman Catholic Church, from approximately 325 AD on, of originating and fueling anti-Semitism (against Jews!). I would go further and add, as proof of their anti-Semitism, the fact that at the First Council of Nicaea, the church, in its desire to please Caesar Constantine, agreed to exonerate Pontius Pilate, the Roman general, of any responsibility in the crucifixion of Christ and put all the blame on the Jews. Pontius Pilate was the victim of intense Jewish (Semitic) pressure.

They assured Caesar that Pontius Pilate was innocent of any wrongdoing. That was the Catholic Church being political in its desire to convert Caesar, his people, and slaves to the Roman Catholic Church.

If I, as a professor, were to say all of the above as absolute truth before a class of students, I would inhibit any challenge or question from my audience.

I believe Mike Rivage-Seul, with his theological credentials, has written in a style that does just that. I do not think he invites questions and discussion, God forbid.

I can write further about the Roman Catholic Church and anti-Semitism. Let us remember that Pope John Paul II apologized for the Roman Catholic Church’s role in its abuse of the Jewish people. Why did he do that? To get our vote?

In fact, the Church could well apologize to the Arab world and cleanse itself of all its anti-Semitism.


Our learned theologian has taken 2000 years of Jewish persecution and murder and reduced it to one asymmetric, absurd paragraph.

The subject of Mr. Rivage-Seul’s article belongs in a discussion group and not as a flaming piece of propaganda.

Murray Kamelhar

Editor,

It’s sad that we are shocked when someone presents the bare truth without any of the usual window dressing. Mike Rivage-Seul’s courageous “Report From Palestine” is striking because it lacks the usual “balance” that belies the fundamental imbalance of power between Israelis and Palestinians. 

The author does a remarkable job of framing the situation unapologetically, and by using terms like “Jewish terrorists,” he turns our well-learned, Israeli-centric point of view completely inside out. Just goes to show that because you repeat something often does not make it true. Well done! 

Kathy Kenny 

Editor,

I am surprised that Atención would print such trash. Mr. Rivage-Seul, the Catholic theologian, offers to share what he considers his “logical” conclusions to the complex contemporary situation in his article 

“Global Justice: Report from Palestine” regarding the Palestinian–Israeli problem and then works backward to fit his half-truths and distorted historical facts to support those conclusions. He then disguises what appears to be an ingrained anti-Semitic attitude by referring to the culprits as merely Israeli Jews rather than all Jews.

He neglects to mention the endurance of fifty years of continuous terrorist activity by Palestinian groups—the targeting of civilians, the blowing up of school buses, restaurants and the placing of bombs in public places—all in an effort to destroy Israel. Was Mr. Rivage-Seul fast asleep during all those years? What the Western world is experiencing now on a very small scale is what Israel has endured for fifty years! What Israel has done rightly or wrongly over the years has been in response to these unprovoked terrorist attacks in an effort to deter or dissuade those responsible from continuing their aggression against it. Unfortunately, innocent people whom the terrorists hide behind are caught in the middle.

He lists his credentials as a Catholic theologian and appears to feel that he can hide behind the Church, immune to criticism and the truth, when he makes so many of these incomprehensible assertions. The Church has opened up somewhat over the years in admitting its historical part in the propagation of anti-Semitism. However, Mr. Rivage-Seul appears not to have heard or understood its message.

In my mind, this man has no sense of shame and little intellect. It’s unfortunate and bodes ill for religious tolerance or open-mindedness on the part of his disciples that he has been seemingly allowed to share his views for thirty-five years with impressionable minds.

Oscar Lemer



Editor,

I read Mike Rivage-Seul’s article on the Middle East. Since I was born in Beirut, Lebanon, and raised there and in Saudi Arabia by American parents living abroad, we were never allowed into the Holy Land. Being raised Catholic, my family had always wanted to go. Thirty years later I jumped at the opportunity to visit a friend who had lived in Haifa, Israel, for 18 years. She knew the country well and took me on a two-week tour. I had experiences and met and talked to people at length who an average tourist would never have met. My naiveté was in believing what I had read. It was in direct contrast to what I experienced. I have never felt so shocked and duped in my life. The Palestinians are a saddened, demoralized, deeply grieving people who have lost so much.

And though I cannot condone the suicide acts and the alleged brainwashing of young adolescents, I realized how much suicide bombing is a desperate act in a desperate situation. Most Americans have absolutely no idea how desperate it is. We as Americans have been manipulated and have become incredibly complacent people. Mike’s story, from my first-hand experience, is right on, and I would stand up on the rafters and shout it out. To quote from a spokesman in Washington on strategic political thinking on the Isreali response in Lebanon: “It is self-defeating to create more enemies than you can destroy.”

Patricia Mahan



Editor,

Dear Mr. Rivage-Seul:

Please accept my deep feelings of sympathy, not for your cause but for you as a theologian involved with the study of God and the relations between Man and God. You most assuredly know how to promote and antagonize man against man with little regard other than to your point of view resulting from a three-week visit. May I suggest that you stand before a mirror and hold your thumb up to it, facing your nail, and in the mirror you will see only the flesh, two views of the same thumb. Now, turn your thumb sideways, and, lo and behold, there is now a third, half flesh and half nail. Methinks your energy would be better directed to the study of theology rather than infecting a wound you are incapable of healing.

Gerald Teldon



Editor,

Norman Ferber has been a winter resident of SMA for many years; he forwarded this letter to me, but I would never expect Atención to print it, especially since reading the “Global Justice” (?) report in Atención of August 25. I, on the other hand, have been a permanent resident of San Miguel de Allende since 1975, and it was my friends who established Atención for the Biblioteca. 

In all these years, there has never been an article published remotely like the one authored by Mike Rivage-Seul, which attacks and threatens the Jewish people who make San Miguel their home, and the serenity of all our many non-Jewish friends here, with what can only be called radical political propaganda.

To my knowledge, publishing this article represents an editorial low that damages this city and divides its residents. The Biblioteca board depends on the intelligent decisions of the editor to protect its reputation as an essential part of San Miguel’s life. Politicizing our newspaper with such a choice is unprecedented.

What do you do now to heal the damage? We have placed such confidence in your skills and discernment up to now; perhaps you know what to do short of sweeping this issue under the rug of public complacency.

We await your response.

Joanne Charm-Yakerson and Sidney Yakerson



Editor,

I have just read the long article by Dr. Harold Weicker, “The Cross at the Crossroads” [August 18 issue, p. 78]. I left any form of orthodox Christian church 43 years ago and might not have done so if there had been in San Diego, California, a fellowship such as he described of people experiencing their spirituality and relationship with Jesus free of the dogmas passed down through the centuries. When I was in real spiritual and emotional crisis I found the metaphysical New Thought teachings, particularly Religious Science.

My intellect and heart and soul were nurtured, and eventually I became a minister of Religious Science.

However, although I hold a Minister Emeritus title now and work for the international ministry of my organization, I have become a great believer in Unity in Diversity, in being open to the truths of life as expressed in many forms of spirituality and philosophy. To explore that diversity and unity my husband, Owen Thomas, and I founded our Center for Unity in Diversity here in San Miguel. Our Philosophy of Life dialogues in English and Spanish allow people to expand their consciousness and experience a true bonding of heart and spirit.

I believe that San Miguel will find that having a diverse, or different, expression of Protestant Christianity will enrich the community. I also believe that the great work of Rev. Michael Long and the St. Paul’s Episcopal Church will continue and actually flourish. The underlying unity of spiritual understanding in both Rev. Michael and Dr. Harold were obvious to me when I heard them both voice their views at a meeting at St. Paul's a few months ago. Each person and each fellowship will draw and maintain the people who belong with them … and many people will receive benefit from both spiritual groups. Spirit is at work in a new way in this town, and that is good. It has not ceased to be wonderfully active in Rev. Michael and St. Paul’s, so this shall be an expansion and not diminishment of this fine church.

I have not chosen to have Sunday services such as the Friends of Unity ones that, led by Gail Keene, blessed San Miguel for years. However, for those who desire a metaphysical and also nondual experience of Spirit, I do invite them to the Thursday morning 10:30 meetings of Friends of Unity at the Quinta Loreto Hotel or the gatherings at Cafe, Etc., where the Unity in Diversity center is located on the first and third Fridays of the month at 12:30pm.

There is room in San Miguel for a diversity of spiritual teachings and groups, and each one brings something unique. All serve people in learning and practicing spiritual principles so that each person’s life is a blessing to that person and to all of us sharing life in San Miguel and our wider world.

Rev. Nancy Anderson