"Quandary for Hebrew: How Would Isaiah Text?" 8/8/08
By Isabel Kershner
It's practically intangible and elusive, but it truly appears that the New York Times delights in heralding Israel's shortcomings and weaknesses.
This article is another example of that outlook; this one highlighting the fear that the revived Hebrew language is already in decline, having "become increasingly estranged from its loftier ancient form."I believe the view taken in the article on Hebrew, its corruption from its "pure" roots, is emblematic of the NYT attitude toward Israel: that it is a corruption of the loftier, morally pure Jew of old.
While the article ultimately debunks its premise, showing that Hebrew is not in such dire danger and has adapted to modern needs, it assigns this Israeli fear that the Hebrew language is foundering to the Jewish-Israeli sense of existential insecurity.
In the NYT way, the author makes light of this existential dread, stating: "The language may have moved on since the days of the prophets, but perhaps the sense of doom has not." While Israel may be a powerful nation, it still faces real threats – military, political, and intellectual – that imperil its long-term viability.
This Jewish sense of communal caution and wariness is not as passé as the NYT would like the reader to believe. Hebrew and the Jewish state will continue to survive and flourish, but not without due vigilance and innovation. There will not be a return to the powerless, morally pure Jew of old, however much the NYT may want it.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
Nice job pointing this NYT trend. They'll always have an excuse for this way of thinking because there are always Israelis who will provide choice quotes like:
ReplyDelete"The state of Israel has no confidence in its continued existence."
Excuse me? Not complex confidence, or muted confidence or even waning confidence, but...NO confidence. Israeli hyperbole sprinkled throughout the article is a NYT favorite.
Kershner writes that Israel is a country where "self-doubt and insecurity run deep."
ReplyDeleteSo that these characterizations are better understood. Our self-doubt is an attribute that is linked to our capacity for self-criticism. The charge of insecurity is more bothersome because it gives the appearance of a country sounds like an accusation. I am reminded of the use of "insecure" in typical conversation. Insecurity is a deficiency.
On a positive note, one of the interviewees, Mr Rosenthal offers a Ben-Gurion-esque statement. “The Bible,” he says, “is first of all our connection to the land.”
Self-doubt and insecurity are offensive because they're wrong.
ReplyDeleteYou're right. Self-criticism can replace self-doubt.
Insecurity. What, like they're not sure they should be there in the first place? Maybe all of us coming here was a big mistake?
Outside of this post-Zionist mentality held by a small percentage, Israelis are not effected by "insecurity"...and it certainly doesn't "run deep".
I bet if Kirshner was forced to elaborate on that line, she'd sound foolish.