Every once in a while somebody breaks out of the cycle of malevolence, retribution and spite that characterize our usual response to crime.  It seems a New York store owner’s compassion to his would be robber was warranted.

Others are a bit more hard headed.  Police respond to their own harassment by teaching each other to recognize other police under cover.  Cause heaven forbid they could rethink the policy of harassing citizens.

Charles Davis gives us a bit of a history lesson on Afghanistan.

And to people who have been asking me for a description of how anarchy would work, I direct you to a wonderful post at Anarchy in Your Head.  Anarchy is not a magic bullet.  It is a realistic assessment of the failings of the state and “the beginning of finding real answers.”

Renee at Womanist Musings recently posted a blog about a repugnant incident of antisemitism at a Florida middle school.  In her post, she said:

to deny the right of a Jewish home state, is certainly a desire to reduce the possibility of any form of power and or security

I took issue with that statement, as did a couple other people after me.  Other commenters thought we inappropriately derailed the discussion from talk about antisemitism to talk about Israel.

I can understand where they are coming from.  It may seem like I sidetracked the post.  But, with all due respect, this is a sidetrack that needs to happen.  It needs to happen often.  And it’s something I don’t do nearly enough.

Israel was never of much interest to me.  I never felt an attachment to Israel.  Quite the opposite in fact.  I always swore I would never go there.  I never got over being a kid and watching Palestinians not much older than myself standing up against Israeli tanks.  But except for the letters I sent to Regan and Begin when I was nine, I never made an effort to have my voice heard on the subject.

As I got older, my commitment to human rights grew, but I didn’t pay any special attention to Israel.  To me, the Jews who paid special attention to Israel were the ones who were busy worrying about helping “their own.”  I didn’t join Jewish organizations or Israel-focused organizations, I joined Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch.  Besides, by the time I was beginning political consciousness, Bill Clinton was president.  Things had calmed down a bit in Israel.  It looked like things might be getting better.

Clearly, things did not get better.  They got much, much worse.  For me, Lebanon was the turning point.  It was time for me to start paying more attention.

There are powerful Zionists in the United States (both Jewish and evangelical) who want to equate Israel and Judaism.  As long as Israel = Jews, criticism of the Israeli government is antisemitism.  As long as Israel = Jews, real discussion about our continued financial, military, and political support of Israel remains a sacred cow.  As long as Israel = Jews there is no room to question the idea of Zionism itself.

And I do question Zionism.  How can someone who grew up in the United States not question it?  How can I embrace the separation of church and state, knowing how important it is to my rights, and support the idea of a state based on Judaism (or any other religion)?

How can I embrace the civil rights movement and yet support the idea of a state based on two kinds of citizenship, one for Arabs and one for Jews?  How can I fight for the rights of immigrants to the United States, but accept a state that prevents people with deep, generational ties to Israel/Palestine from returning to it?  How can I stand against the privileges that come with an accident of birth here in the U.S., but embrace those kinds of privileges somewhere else?

It isn’t possible.

Americans need to be talking about those contradictions.  And in order for that to happen, American Jews need to be challenging the idea that Israel = Jew.   We need to do it loudly and often, even if it means derailing a few conversations.

An incident happened at my friend’s job the other day that perfectly demonstrates why liberals and conservatives are ultimately doomed to fail in their efforts to resolve conflicts.

One of the employees is a very young woman.  She’s not particularly mature.  It’s her first job.  She was getting upset because some of the other employees were showing up late in the mornings, leaving her the only one there.

To give you a bit of background.  This business was run by a woman who had only one rule, that there were no rules.  Employees had been led to believe that they had a very chill policy about being a few minutes late in the morning.  Nobody had ever been spoken to about tardiness.

This young woman, rather than speaking to her coworkers, went to the new management.  Management instituted a litany of draconian new policies for people who are late.  These policies don’t effect everyone equally, as some people have children or live farther away.  And one employee has an illness that makes things particularly hard.

I have no doubt that the manager primarily responsible for the new policies had good intentions.  In her mind, no doubt, she is looking after the complaining employee – a very sweet girl who I’m sure made a compelling case for paternalism.

The problem is that every other employee was feeling beat down.  Moral sunk.  A small wall was put up between the other employees and the complainer.  A wall was put up between the employees and the management.  They’ve gotten over that incident, but their relationships will always be a little bit different.

It didn’t have to be that way.  The people at this place are all kind and conscientious.  Had the unhappy employee went directly to them, I have no doubt they would have changed their behavior.  They could have worked something out.  But that opportunity was lost.

If you believe, as I do, that the management had good intentions and were just trying to look out for the person they thought taken advantage of, then this is a great example of how liberals go wrong.  Liberals have good intentions, but they are constantly erecting walls with their paternalism.

If you are more skeptical and think that the new management was just exercising their authority, imposing discipline to get people in line, then this is a great example of how conservatives go wrong.  Conservatives think people are only motivated by consequences.  But all they create is fear, distrust, and resentment.

Liberals and Conservatives have been unable to resolve any of our fundamental problems, because nobody can solve somebody else’s problems.   The longer we rely on mommy or daddy to deal with things for us, the fewer problem solving skills we develop.

It doesn’t matter if you are approaching an issue with the intention to help people or to scare the piss out of them.  Putting a third party representative or authority in the middle of conflict degrades relationships and ensures future conflict.

Db0 has a new post up on how he ended up calling himself an Anarchist.  He’s also started a meme.  I’m really looking forward to reading other stories.  Noor posted a link to her story in the comments.  You should definitely read them both.

Thanks to @solidadrocks for tweeting this article on our natural instinct to be helpful.

Being a big opponent of our senseless drug policy (and very frustrated by talk of even more worthless crop substitution programs in Afghanistan) this article on Global Post caught my eye.  Typical that the assumption is automatically that the problem is lack of a title to their land – rather than the necessity of buying seeds and fertilizer, or perhaps the bank policies.

I really like Annarky’s blog.  And could there be any more obvious contradiction than Obama making commitments in Copenhagen while escalating a war.

This post over at ladypoverty goes very nicely with my article about the failure of the nuclear family.  “Family centered” my ass.

Finally, for those of you who want some examples of anarchy in action, I direct you to the Psychology of the New Economy at Trust is the Only Currency.