Connections Significant and Petty

In January I joined this hateful, soul-crushing, privacy-sapping, conformity-encouraging, time-sucking social networking website called 'facebook', you may have heard of it.

Having just moved back to New York after nearly ten years in Europe, I suppose I joined in order to stay connected easily with my friends around the world, to reconnect with people I had fallen out of touch with in the States, and to be able to promote my creative activities to people I imagined might be interested.

I was, and am, skeptical of this website, and I used it with caution (I still keep my profile private). But very soon after I joined I began receiving friend requests from people I hadn't heard from in 15 years or so. One such person, from my high school circle of friends, immediately left me a curious message that went something like this (I recall it from memory):

At first I was glad to see you are on Facebook. But then I looked online and found this on your blog: "I support the insurgency against US and allied forces in Iraq. I wish no harm to those American troops. I think they should just leave. Now. But if they won't, well, I support efforts to force them out. Unfortunately." My husband is in Iraq. I think it is good you chose to leave America. I think you should stay there.

She had dug deep for this out-of-context quote, several pages into my blog and many paragraphs down in my essay Violence and Ghandi's Blunders. But OK. I responded privately at the time:

Perhaps you've heard such arguments before, but if this country was invaded and under occupation, we would probably agree that the invading force should leave or be forced out.

I want to be clear: I wrote "unfortunately" about supporting troops being forced out and I wrote that I wish them no harm. I remember your husband from high school and I truly wish for him to come home safe. The mission is illegal under international law and was flawed in many more ways from the get-go. I believe that his will to do good has been terribly misused by the people at the top of the chain of command.

If living abroad for a decade has helped me to have this perspective, then I'm glad for that privilege. But I live in the US now. I welcome the opportunity to discuss this sort of thing, but I think the "love it or leave it" tone of your message was unnecessary and a bit frightening.

She sent this back: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." And quietly 'unfriended' me.

Which is fair enough. I actually wrote earlier in the paragraph from my essay she quoted, "my allies are really fewer and further between than I would like to admit." Just because people grow up together, or go to the same schools, or come from a similar socio-economic background, or persue the same career...none of this makes anyone an automatic ally. Obviously. But realizing this has been a slow process for me over many years. Whereas I once saw us all 'in this together' and was greatly interested in large-scale movements for social change, I am wary of such groups now. I don't wish to disparage them all, but many seem to be an excuse for inactivity, and they mirror authoritarian and/or otherwise invasive structures in one way or another. (I even turned down an invitation to join the Cloud Appreciation Society recently. I may like to look at and photograph clouds, but joining others in this and carrying a card will not make the clouds more lovely, nor my appreciation for them greater.)

Anyway, I have another, more recent political exchange on facebook to relate. An acquaintance from junior high school 'friended' me some months ago. It seems to be acceptable practice to do this without even saying hello, even if there has been no contact between the two people in a decade or so, and nothing more in common than a high school diploma from the same school. We weren't close then, haven't kept in touch since. Well, the other day I posted a link to a Democracy Now story about poor nutrition in the U.S. The following exchange ensued with this person, we'll call him 'Arek':

Arek: You have to take anything from "Democracy Now" with a grain of salt and in this case a tablespoon of sugar!

me: That's kinda funny. What's your beef with DN?

Arek: Well, DN is very entertaining, and some of their information is good, but they paint a very disorted view of reality.

My issue with them is that what they say about Israel is slanderous. Many of the stories are fictious and are always one sided.

I think they have damaged their crediblity by reporting falsehoods and hear say and as far as I know have never issued a retraction.

Sadly I think they are responsible for alot of confusion amoung intelectual people and create division among Jews.

Have you ever been to Israel?

me: I see. And strongly disagree (that DN is wrong on Israel).

I performed in Tel Aviv and Jerusalem in 2007, and lectured in Holon on the role of artists in breaking down the walls (real and metaphorical) imposed by nasty governments.

Arek: Sorry, but it sounds like DN has gotten to you too!

Living in Israel I can tell you the government is not "nasty", as they have ben very good to me.

Israel is just a little country surrounded by very dangerous people, every moment of every day someone is trying to kill a Jew.

me: I was talking about all governments dude. A gov't is only as nice as it is to the least privileged of its people. You may have done well over there, many are not so lucky. To say nothing of the millions IL holds captive in the Occupied Territories. You sound like you are living in a settlement, which, if true...nuff said. But still, to be fair, turn around what you wrote: 'every moment of every day an Israeli (and I won't conflate them with jews) is trying to kill someone.' I'm not wrong. And I won't continue this discussion here.

Arek: I am really sorry you feel this way. Nothing I say will change your mind. Arabs in Israel live in the only democracy in the Middle East and have many if not more freedoms than the Jews.

How do you see the constant stream of terrorism against Jews inside and outside of Israel as a problem that we created?

What would happen to us if there was not fence or army to defend us?

For the first time in 2000 years there is Jewish country and you are not here building it, but in the States trying to destroy it.

I guess Cat Steven's must be your role model?

Needless to say, this person is neither ally nor friend. I have many Israeli friends in and out of Israel, but never have I encountered this sort of delusional thinking among them (only among American Jews). On the surface this is a completely insignificant exchange with a brainwahsed, racist settler. But the points he made merit some response, perhaps.

Arabs in Israel live in the only democracy in the Middle East...
False. On both counts.

How do you see the constant stream of terrorism against Jews inside and outside of Israel as a problem that we created?
Note the manipulative language. There is not a constant stream of terrorism against Jews outside of Israel. There are acts of anti-Semitism in the world, to be sure. To wilfully conflate these with the legitimate struggles against the state terror of the State of Israel is deceitful. To conflate all the acts of violence within Israel with terrorism is deceitful. To equate the violence inherent in the defense of Gaza, or the West Bank, or Lebanon, with the violence of Israel's illegal occupations and invasions is deceitful.

What would happen to us if there was not fence or army to defend us?
Ask the Palestinians. They are living the answer to this question.

For the first time in 2000 years there is Jewish country and you are not here building it, but in the States trying to destroy it.
I'm about as interested in a 'Jewish' country in the Middle East as I am in a Kalahari Bushmen country in the Yukon Territory, or a Zoroastrian country in the Easter Islands, or a Catholic country in Vatican City. Seriously. (And remember, many of the people who run Israel are ethnic Europeans.)

I guess Cat Steven's must be your role model?
Well, he's got a great voice.

*

Of course it's all petty. It's facebook after all. The problem with social networking is that it is anti-social and the networks are false. There are these petty, insignificant, virtual connections and then there are the connections one longs for. A friend of mine who just returned from a week in the woods said to me today--said to me, for real, not 'texted' me--"Being alone in the woods is the least lonely thing."

So true. I spent six days hiking alone in the Western Beskid mountains in Poland earlier this summer. The first day I kept wanting to communicate what I was experiencing, but my mind went no further than imagining the views in bite-size morsels acceptable for social networking. Terrible. But as I hiked (and it was a deliciously grueling, utterly exhausting hike), I awoke once again to my senses, to connections that mattered: hot, cold, thirst, hunger, distance, mud, sun, stone, rain, wind, birds, flies, deer tracks, bear tracks, trail conditions, animal sounds in the forest, my ability to hold out through the day's walking against pains from the weight of my pack.

Over the next days I forgot about petty connections and discovered connections more significant than I can communicate without physically showing them to you. I imagine we all know, deep in our animal selves, that we should forge and nurture these significant connections. And when we do, we won't even remember wanting to say to hell with all of this petty networking.