war statue of jesus

A statue gets 75,000 reactions. The war gets less

by with No Comment shalzedstory

A statue gets 75,000 reactions. The war gets less.

A single photo goes viral. Shalzed wants to know why this one—and not the others.

A photo of a statue of Jesus being smashed gets hundreds of thousands of reactions.
Photos of actual people suffering don’t get anywhere near the attention.

This week, Shalzed asks why.

A statue gets 75,000 reactions. The war gets less. Shalzed Wants to Know Why.

After school, I met Shalzed at Stop’n Shop. He was fascinated by what we ate, and wanted me to explain what some of our processed food products were.

“But why do you put acids that decay teeth inside your water?” he asked when he saw a display of coca-cola at the entrance.

“Some people like it,” I told him. “And if so many people drink it, it can’t be that bad.” I was trying to decide whether I should mention that in the summer I sometimes got coke slurpees at 7-eleven when my phone buzzed. I swiped and it was a notice asking me to check out a viral post on Facebook.

“Can I see it?” Shalzed asked, looking over my shoulder.

I held up my phone. It was a picture of an Israeli soldier destroying a statue of Jesus somewhere in Southern Lebanon, under the headline, ‘This is what impunity looks like.’ It already had 75k reactions and thousands of comments.

“I don’t understand- it’s a statue,” Shalzed said.

At school, people had already been talking about this in the teachers’ lounge. “Yeah, but it’s a statue of Jesus. Christians are offended.”

“Has any photo showing people killed in the war gotten anywhere close to that many likes?” he asked.

“Excuse me, you’re blocking the aisle,” a familiar voice said from behind me. I turned to see Rabbi Meyer pretending to reach for a the two liter bottle.

“Have you met Shalzed?” I asked. “He’s from. . . far away.”

“Yes, we met once outside the library,” the rabbi said. That’s right- Rabbi Meyer had passed by when we were discussing the story of Purim.

“We were just talking about why the photo of the IDF soldier destroying the Jesus sculpture is so viral on Facebook,” I said, hoping to change the topic. I didn’t want the rabbi to ask any more questions about how I knew Shalzed.

“So horrific,” Rabbi Meyer replied. “It’s a desecration of God’s name. I already signed a statement of Jewish leaders offering an apology.”

“You must issue statements every day, then,” Shalzed said.

Rabbi Meyer frowned. “What do you mean?”

“Countless people have been killed over the last three years. Tens of thousands are homeless. . .”

Rabbi Meyer interrupted. “The photo of the soldier destroying the statue is uniquely harmful to Israel’s image. It could ruin relations with the Christian community, just when we need allies the most.”

“So the main problem is image?” Shalzed asked.

“I think he means that this photo is being exploited by people who want to stir up hatred of Israel,” I interjected.

“That’s right,” Rabbi Meyer said. He stepped past Shalzed to grab a bottle of cherry coke and put it in his cart. “Antisemitism is at an all time high. Just last week, synagogues were attacked in London. The last thing we need right now is a picture like that.” He began pushing his cart towards the produce.

“See you in shul,” I said as he went over to the grapes. I turned to Shalzed. “It gets so much attention because Jesus is a religious symbol,” I said.

“And symbols are what matter most?” he asked.

“No,” I said quickly, but I couldn’t think of a good explanation. Do you want me to show you the cereal aisle? There are probably more than a hundred different kinds.”

Shalzed ignored me. “Has any other picture of the war gotten as much attention?”

I told him I didn’t know, then paused to consider. “It’s just that in this picture it’s obvious that the soldier is doing something wrong,”

Shalzed shook his head. “Humans only know what’s wrong when the victim is a statue?”

I clicked my tongue. “It’s not that,” I told him. “It’s just that most of the time the facts are complicated. Here, it’s simple- why destroy a religious object?”

A mom came into the store, pushing a young child in a dinosaur shaped shopping cart. The kid pointed eagerly at the coca cola, and the mom sighed. She reached around Shalzed, hardly noticing he was there, and picked up a two liter bottle. “I’m putting this in the cart now, but I’ll only buy it if you behave nice the whole time we’re in the store,” she said. The child clapped, then they also headed towards produce.

“Children drink this too?” Shalzed asked. He wrinkled his nose and began blinking.

“Sometimes,” I told him. “Let me show you the cereal.”

Shalzed blinked again, and I could tell his mind was still on the photo. “Is the soldier going to be punished?” he asked.

I checked my phone. “Not only was the soldier who smashed the statue already put in prison, but Israel replaced the statue with another one as well,” I told him.

“It’s been less than two days,” he exclaimed.

I smiled. “That’s right,” I said. “Every army has soldiers who break the rules, but Israel at least tries to do what’s right.”

“What about other accusations against Israeli soldiers? Why don’t those investigations move as quickly?”

“I don’t know. Why don’t we go to the cereal aisle so we’ll be out of the entrance.”

An obese man in a mobility scooter stopped right next to me and said excuse me in an annoyed tone. I stepped aside and he reached over to grab a bottle of diet coke. “Lots of people coming through here,” he mumbled at us as he continued into the store. “Maybe run for Congress if you just want to stand around.”

Shalzed turned away from me, and fixed his gaze on the coke display. “So only when there’s a photo that makes things clear, you act immediately. Otherwise, you just argue,” he said.

“Not exactly,” I told him.

Shalzed pointed to a big picture of smiling people holding cans of coca-cola on the wall above the bottles. “Maybe simple images like that are why humans drink acid water without asking questions,” he said.

He paused. “And don’t act unless the situation is obvious.”

Subscribe to Receive Shalzed's adventures in your inbox

Read More of Shalzed's Adventures

Sources:

For more information on this incident from Times of Israel, click here.

For details on the international statement of apology from the Jerusalem Post, click here.

For information on the soldiers’ punishment from Reuters, click here.

Shalzed and Simon plates in microwave

I Put the Dishes in the Microwave. Then Shalzed Asked About Nukes

by with No Comment shalzedstory

I Put the Dishes in the Microwave. Then Shalzed Asked About Nukes

Why do we trust some countries with nuclear weapons, but not others?

If the same rules don’t apply to everyone, are they really rules—or just power?

That becomes a sticking point this week when Shalzed asks Simon why Iran can’t have nuclear weapons—even though the U.S. and Israel already do.

I Put the Dishes in the Microwave. Then Shalzed Asked About Nukes

I was watching an NBA play- in game when Shalzed rang the doorbell. I buzzed him up, then put the dirty pans I had left on the stovetop into a pile and shoved some dirty plates in the sink into the microwave while he came upstairs.

“I have some questions,” Shalzed said as he opened the door, holding a human rights textbook in his hand.

I glanced reflexively at the television. There was a commercial, and anyway it was almost halftime. “Okay,” I said, doubting I would really be able to help.

Shalzed followed my gaze, but remained staring at the screen. The commercial switched to a preview of the news, and it was showing a clip of Marco Rubio saying that the U.S. would never allow Iran to acquire nuclear weapons.

“Why not?” Shalzed asked, turning to me. “The U.S. and Israel have nuclear weapons. Why can’t Iran have them too?”

“Because they want to destroy us,” I said quickly.

Shalzed blinked his eyes three times, which by now I knew meant he was either surprised or thinking. “But the United States and Israel are the ones who just attacked Iran,” he said.

“Yes, but that was to stop them from attacking us in the future.” My phone rang, and I saw that it was my mom. “Do you mind if I answer?” I asked.

”When your transmitter boxes signal, aren’t you required to take action? I have never observed a human fail to do so.”

I smiled as I swiped. “Hello imma,” I said, putting the phone on speaker.

“I just wanted to ask if you’re bringing anyone Friday night,” my mom asked me.

I clicked my tongue. I had told my parents that I was going out with someone last Sunday, but it was just a first date from JDate. It hadn’t gone well, either, and by now I couldn’t even remember her name. But of course my mom already wanted to meet her. “No, mom,” I said. “Just me for Shabbat. But maybe you can help me explain to Shalzed why we can’t let Iran have a nuclear weapon.”

My family were the only ones I had told about Shalzed, since I had invited him to our seder. “What kind of a question?” my mom asked. “The Ayatollahs are crazy. You know the things they say. And they should have nuclear weapons?”

I couldn’t help but chuckle. “Like Trump isn’t crazy at all,” I said.

“At least we have a constitution. The President has to listen to the cabinet,” my mom said.

“Iran signed the non-proliferation treaty,” my dad added.

“Abba, I didn’t know you were on the line,” I said.

“I have you on speaker too,” my mom answered.

“When countries sign the treaty, they give up their right to build nuclear weapons.”

Shalzed frowned. “Did the U.S. sign?” he asked.

“Of course,” my dad said.

“So why does the U.S. have nuclear weapons?” Shalzed asked.

My dad was a college history professor, and his tone switched to explanation mode. “Because the treaty says that the five countries that had nukes before they signed could keep them, and the U.S. is one of those,” he said.

Shalzed frowned. “So the countries that got nukes first can keep them, but all the other countries are never allowed?” he asked.

“Exactly. Otherwise there would be a nuclear arms race as all the other countries tried for the bomb,” my dad replied.

“What about Israel?” I wondered.

“Israel never signed the treaty,” my dad said. “That’s why Israel isn’t violating anything if it develops nukes, but Iran is.”

I heard the doorbell chime in the background. “That’s probably Rosalie Goodman. Bridge starts in half an hour, but she always arrives early,” my mom said.

“Okay, have a good time,” I said. My mom loved playing bridge, mahjong, and every other sort of card game. It bored me to pieces.

I looked around the kitchen as my mom hung up. “Would you like something?” I asked. Shalzed was fascinated with Earth food.

He looked at a nearly empty bowl with just a few kernels of popcorn on the counter. I smiled. “I’ll make you some,” I said, taking a packet of microwave popcorn from a cabinet. Then I added, “Iran is devoted to Israel’s destruction. They give weapons to Hamas and Hezbollah. If they had the bomb, that would be the end.”

“So you think Iran isn’t responsible, but Trump is. And Iran has to follow a treaty that says five countries can have nukes but not any others, even though Israel went ahead and got nukes anyway, along with a bunch of others?”

I stood in place for a moment, thinking. “The point is that leaders who go around saying death to Israel and death to America shouldn’t have the bomb,” I told Shalzed.

“But it’s okay for the U.S., even though Trump just threatened to destroy all Iranian civilization?” he asked.

“That’s just the way Trump talks,” I said. “Everyone knows he’s not serious.”

“Are the Iranians sure he’s not serious?” Shalzed asked.

I didn’t know what to answer, so I opened the microwave. I was about to toss in the popcorn when I saw my dirty plates.

“How does radiation wash dishes?” shalzed asked, frowning.

“It doesn’t,” I told him.

“But then why. . .,” he began.

“There are some things I can’t explain,” I said, looking at the plates.

“Like why Iran can’t have nuclear weapons, while Israel and the U.S. can?” he asked.

I shrugged. “I feel much safer if they don’t.”

“Do you think they feel safer, too?” he asked.

I looked at the microwave, then back at Shalzed. I didn’t know what to say.

Subscribe to Receive Shalzed's adventures in your inbox

Read More of Shalzed's Adventures
Shalzed waits for ben gvir

Shalzed stopped me on my way to buy a post-Passover pizza to ask about Israel’s death penalty law.

by with No Comment story

Shalzed stopped me on my way to buy a post-Passover pizza to ask about Israel’s death penalty law.

If the same crime gets different punishments, is it still justice?

As soon as Passover was over, I started walking over to Stop’n Shop to buy a frozen pizza. The truth is, it took nearly the whole holiday to finish leftovers from the seder, and I loved my mom’s brisket and sweet potatoes. But I was ready for some chametz. As I got to the parking lot, Shalzed called.

“Did you hear that Israel passed a law giving the death penalty for Palestinian terrorists, while exempting Israelis?” he asked.

“I heard.” There had been lots of talk about it at shul.

“So the same crime gets different punishments depending on who does it?” Shalzed asked.

That made me feel uncomfortable, but Israel also has special security challenges to deal with. “It’s to deter terrorists,” I said.

“But there can be terrorists on both sides.” The Stop’n Shop sign began to look twisted, and the grocery store seemed to be getting farther away. “Punishments should be the same, no matter who commits the crime.”

Stop’n Shop seemed to dissolve into thin air. It felt like I was in a thick fog. I extended my arms but couldn’t feel anything around me. Then I was in what I could tell at once was an Israeli settlement due to the rows of red-roofed houses rising against the dry, hilly landscape. Shalzed was next to me, and he immediately stepped forward and called to a heavyset man wearing a suit and large kippah who was about to get into the back seat of a large, black car that was waiting in the driveway. “Why should the death penalty be only for Palestinians, but not Israelis?” Shalzed asked.

It was easy to recognize that he was talking to was Itamar Ben Gvir, since his picture was in the news so often. He gave Shalzed a long look. “It’s not just about Palestinians, the new law applies to anyone who’s goal is to destroy the state of Israel,” he said.

“So why doesn’t it apply to Israelis who kill Palestinians?” Shalzed asked.

I really hoped Ben Gvir wouldn’t respond with something about how the Torah regards killing Jews as more severe than killing people who aren’t Jewish. “Thou shalt not murder applies to everybody,” I added.

A woman came out of the house, holding something in her hand. As soon as she saw us she stepped back inside, behind the door, probably because her head was uncovered. “Itamar, you forgot something,” she yelled.

Ben Gvir seemed annoyed, but went back. Then he smiled when he saw what was in her hand.  It was a pin with an image of a noose that he promptly put on his jacket. It made me upset how he celebrated the death penalty like that. “What’s discriminatory is calling Palestinian terrorists freedom fighters and saying that Palestinians who have killed Jews are somehow political prisoners who should be set free,” Ben Gvir said as he reapproached the car.

“What does that have to do with the death penalty?” I asked.

He turned to face me, hands on hips. He seemed so adamant that I almost felt frightened and took a step back. “The human rights groups are so racist and biased that they want every Palestinian prisoner released, no matter their crimes. If we don’t use the death penalty, they’ll keep trying to force us to set them free.”

Shalzed frowned. “There are Palestinians Israel has held in prison for years,” he said.

Ben Gvir shook his head. “Look at how many we had to free to get the hostages from Gaza. Every minute we keep Palestinians alive in jail, it’s an incentive for them to take hostages to trade. And the world encourages it.”

He was certainly right about that. I thought back on when Israel released over a thousand prisoners in return for Gilad Shalit. “But will it really work?” I asked. “Even if Israel executes Palestinians guilty of murder, there will still be lots more in jail.”

“It’ll be a deterrent,” Ben Gvir said. His phone rang. He listened for a moment, then said b’seder. “Bibi wants to talk to me, and he’s coming on the line in a minute.”

“Haven’t most Earth countries stopped using the death penalty altogether?” Shalzed asked.

Ben Gvir gave him a funny look. “Not Iran. Not Saudi Arabia- they carry out executions at a rate of one person per day. Hamas executes anyone they believe is a traitor. And the world is all up in arms because we want to kill terrorists.” Ben Gvir raised his palms in the air.

“The Jewish tradition is very hesitant about the death penalty,” I said. Last year, in my 8th grade  class, I had the kids read the Mishnah which says that a beit din which carries out the death penalty more than once in seventy years is a killer court.

“That’s in normal times,” Ben Gvir said. “Today we have a whole Palestinian society trying to destroy us, while most of the world applauds.”

I heard a voice that sounded like Bibi come from Ben Gvir’s phone. He gave us a wave, then jumped into the back seat of the car as he put the phone to his ear. The driveway started to look curved, and then wavy, as the car sped off. A moment later I was back outside Stop’n Shop.

When I got to the entrance, a guy wearing a store apron was opening the door to let people out. “We’re closed,” he called at me.

I decided to try 7 Eleven. On the way, I passed a house with signs that said ‘End Israel Apartheid’ and ‘Equal Rights for Equal People’ in every window. I understood why Israel wanted the death penalty. But if the same crime leads to death for Palestinians but not Israelis, is there really equal justice?

Subscribe to Receive Shalzed's adventures in your inbox

Read More of Shalzed's Adventures

For more background on Israel’s new death penalty law from CNN, click here.

Simon getting ready for Passover with a conquistador helmet

Spain apologized for 1521. Shalzed is upset. What if Passover is next?

by with No Comment story

Spain apologized for 1521. Shalzed is upset. What if Passover is next?

Why should anyone today answer for what happened long ago?

Today Shalzed asks why Spain was made to apologize for events that took place in 1521. It seemed unrelated- until Simon wondered whether, by that logic, Jewish people might have to apologize for the ten plagues too.

Spain apologized for 1521. Shalzed is upset. What if Passover is next?

I was at my parents’ house, because my mom and dad needed my help to get the heavy boxes of Passover stuff from the basement up to the kitchen. My mom had just sent me down to get the haggadot when Shalzed called and asked me a question I didn’t know how to answer. “The King of Spain just apologized for something a Spanish explorer named Hernan Cortez did in 1521,” he asked. “I can’t understand why.”

I pulled out my phone. “Mexico’s been pushing for that for years,” I said. “The Spanish destroyed Tenochtitlan to make it their capital. Everyone knows colonialism meant horrible crimes.”

The Passover boxes swayed in front of me.

“But what does that have to do with current day Spain?” Shalzed asked.

It felt like the basement was moving, and the floor seemed to tilt. Then it was gone. A moment later, Shalzed and I were in the midst of a large group of people walking along a scenic road through some mountains, with a heavy contingent of Mexican police along the side. I felt someone push into me from behind, and so I started to walk along.

“Señora Presidenta,” Shalzed called. A woman leading the group turned. She was wearing an elegant burgundy dress, with elaborate, elegantly embroidered flowers on the front. I had seen the news enough to recognize her as Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum. “Why do you want Spain to apologize for things that happened hundreds of years ago? The people who did it aren’t even alive.”

Shalzed quickened his pace to catch up with her, and I hurried to stay with him. Sheinbaum frowned. “Are you accompanying us as part of the honour guard?” she asked. Shalzed’s bright orange spacesuit looked nothing like the Mexican men accompanying her, wearing white shirts with colorful embroidery and large sombreros.

“No,” I said quickly. I was wearing jeans and a Camp Ramah staff T-shirt, so maybe not quite as much as Shalzed, but I also stood out.

“No one now living in Spain has anything to do with what happened five hundred years ago,” Shalzed said. “Do you believe that just by being born Spaniards they inherited guilt?”

Sheinbaum turned towards him without slowing down. “Not guilt, but responsibility,” she said. “Countries evolve, while laws, language, and identity all continue on.”

“So Spanish citizens are responsible for Hernan Cortez, because he is one of their ancestors?” Shalzed asked.

“For centuries the suffering of indigenous Mexicans was denied or minimized,” Sheinbaum said. “An apology says it was real, and it mattered.”

“How? It’s just words that won’t make any practical difference,” Shalzed said.

A man wearing an elegant, black Mexican shirt with red embroidery running down the right side who had been walking with Sheinbaum moved closer. “For the King of Spain to finally apologize acknowledges that their suffering was a real injustice, after so many years of being pushed aside,” he said.

We were walking quickly, and I saw up ahead a small plaza with a giant, black statue of a seated man with a stern expression above the crowd. People gathered at the edges of the square, with a large group of reporters waiting in front of a podium.

“What is this?” I asked.

President Sheinbaum, the man in the black shirt next to her, and a number of other people around us looked at me suspiciously, and I realized I had said something stupid. “The President is about to lay a wreath for Benito Juarez,” the man in the black shirt said. “If you’re not part of the honor guard, then you shouldn’t be here.”

“How can you hold people responsible for things they didn’t do?” Shalzed asked. “Let alone things done by their ancestors?”

She clicked her tongue. “It’s not about saying present day Spaniards are guilty,” she said. “It’s that this apology is a step towards rewriting history so it’s more balanced. So we finally include the perspectives of those who were colonized, too.”

“If indigenous people are suffering today,” Shalzed said, “wouldn’t it be better to focus on what you can change now, rather than worrying about who in the past was to blame?”

We were now at the edge of the square, and everyone slowed. Some military officials who had been waiting started to come over to greet Sheinbaum. “We need both,” she told Shalzed. “Without addressing the past, we will never be able to build a solid future.” She turned and started to shake the men’s hands.

“If you don’t have a part in the ceremony, you need to go behind that ribbon,” the man in the black shirt told us. A policeman stepped to his side.

“If people are held responsible for crimes of their ancestors, when does it ever end?” Shalzed asked. “Every nation and ethnic group throughout history is guilty of something.”

The man glanced at Sheinbaum. She turned to us, signaling the officers to wait. “Gestures matter,” she said. “Owning up to the past does not divide us, it makes us stronger.” Then she accompanied the officers to the center of the square.

“It’s part of what we’re doing here,” the man in the black shirt added. “Benito Juarez was Zapotec, and he overcame tremendous discrimination to become President of Mexico. Laying a wreath on his birthday acknowledges the unfair hurdles indigenous people face.”

The policeman raised his eyebrows and gestured towards the ribbon. I opened my mouth to respond- but he wasn’t looking at us anymore. The sounds of the square softened, like they were moving farther away.

The crowd and the statue dissolved into nothing, and then I was back in the basement of my parents’ house. Shalzed wasn’t with me, and my mom was calling my name. “I’ll be right up,” I yelled. I had no idea how long I had been gone, and I hoped she hadn’t worried. My stomach was churning. I took a deep breath, and for a moment I leaned against the wall.

When I started to feel better, I began putting all the Haggadot in the box. The ones that my dad liked had a picture of the splitting of the sea on the cover. If we are all supposed to be responsible for our ancestors, I wondered how far it goes. Should Egypt apologize for enslaving the Israelites? Should Israel apologize for the plagues?

“Is everything okay down there?” My mom called.

“Coming,” I said back.

History matters. But if responsibility never ends, conflict will never end either.

Subscribe to Receive Shalzed's adventures in your inbox

Read More of Shalzed's Adventures

Sources:

For more information on Spain’s apology from Reuters, click here.

For detail on Claudia Shenbaum’s reaction from the BBC, click here.

shalzed and Simon

I told Shalzed it was just tough talk about the war. Then he surprised me. . .

by with No Comment story

I told Shalzed it was just tough talk about the war. Then he surprised me. . .

I had just emptied my fridge onto the kitchen table for Passover cleaning when Shalzed came upstairs, blinking rapidly. He was upset about something outrageous Pete Hegseth said at a press conference. I try to explain that Hegseth probably didn’t mean his words literally. Then Shalzed asks why I don’t give our enemies the same benefit of the doubt.

I told Shalzed it was just tough talk about the war. Then he surprised me. . .

I decided to get started early with Passover cleaning this year and start on my fridge. I figured if I did the freezer and all the drawers now, I’d only have to wipe it down right before the holiday. But just as soon as I had put everything from the fridge out on my kitchen table, Shalzed buzzed from the street. As he came up the stairs, I put the Haagen Daz ice cream back in the freezer so it wouldn’t melt.

“I just saw a news report that I can’t understand,” he began. “Pete Hegseth, your Secretary of Defense, said at a news conference, ‘We will keep pushing, keep advancing, no quarter, no mercy for our enemies.’

“He’s probably just trying to sound tough,” I said.

Shalzed blinked his eyes rapidly, which is what he did when he felt shocked. “But how?” he demanded. “How could he? Aren’t those words which must never be uttered?”

The truth is that I had no idea what ‘no quarter’ really meant. But wasn’t it normal in war not to have mercy for the enemy? I looked ‘no quarter’ up on my phone and was surprised by what I found. To declare ‘no quarter’ was to say that enemies would be killed even if they were already wounded or trying to surrender. “I doubt he really meant it,” I told Shalzed. I couldn’t imagine that the U.S. army would actually kill surrendering Iranian troops.

“But by just having said those words enemies are less likely to be willing to surrender.” Shalzed blinked his eyes some more. “Even the mere suggestion that prisoners may be killed or mistreated could have the effect of increasing fighting and lengthening the war.”

I looked at all my refrigerator stuff on the table. “Is there any Earth food here you haven’t yet tried?” I asked. I realized the thing he would probably most like was the ice cream. When he discovered vanilla soft-serve he ate three cones, so if I gave him strawberry cheesecake Haagen Daz he might finish the whole container. I needed it for my cousin’s birthday party, so I was glad I had put it back.

Shalzed glanced over the table, then looked back at me and blinked again. “How could he say that and remain in charge of the army?” Shalzed asked again. “Hasn’t he violated your laws just with what he said?”

My phone rang, and I saw it was a call from my brother Yoni in Israel. I swiped to answer. With the war going on I wanted to make sure Yoni was okay, and Shalzed seemed so upset that it was starting to make me uncomfortable. “Everything alright?” I asked.

“Yeah, we just got out of our shelter,” Yoni said. “A missile fell a kilometer from us, I wanted to call in case you were worried.”

I felt guilty that I hadn’t heard. “Good,” I told him. “Was anyone hurt?”

“They’re not sure yet. It fell on a street, but hopefully everyone in the houses nearby was in a safe room.”

I glanced at Shalzed. He had his hands on his hips and wasn’t even looking at the table. I put the phone on speaker. “Yoni, I have a friend over,” I said. I had mentioned Shalzed to Yoni in passing, but never said anything about where Shalzed was from. I hadn’t mentioned that to anyone, actually, since I figured there was no way they’d believe it. “Do you know what it means to give no quarter?”

“Don’t give loose change to someone asking for money,” he replied.

I wasn’t sure if he was trying to be funny. “No,” I told him. “Like in war.”

“Yeah, they taught us stuff like that at the end of basic training.” Yoni did a full three years of army duty after he made aliya. “It’s the kind of thing that even if your commander tells you to do it, you’re supposed to disobey.”

Shalzed leaned forward. “What if the order comes from the Secretary of Defense?”

I told Yoni about Hegseth’s statement. “He was probably just saying how unfair it is that we are expected to follow all the Geneva Convention even when fighting terrorists who don’t,” he said.

“So he was serious!” Shalzed exclaimed.

“But it doesn’t matter, because troops are trained to disobey that type of thing, right?” I asked Yoni.

“Yeah, that’s true. Also, soldiers listen to their commander, not what’s on the news,” he said. “The main thing is that the U.S. is helping us get rid of the Iranian threat.”

“Was Iran a threat?” Shalzed asked. He had already taken me to confront the United States UN ambassador Mike Waltz about whether the war was legal, so I hoped he wasn’t going to bring that up again.

“Of course it was,” Yoni replied. “Khomeini led chants of death to Israel and death to America. He even put up a clock counting down to Israel’s destruction.”

“But maybe he wasn’t serious. Maybe he was just trying to boast about the strength of Iran’s armed forces,” Shalzed said.

I laughed. “I think we have to assume he was serious. Otherwise, why was he stockpiling missiles and trying to build nuclear weapons?” I asked.

“Listen, if it was just a one time statement I’d agree with you,” Yoni chimed in. “But we have to understand it in context. Khomeini was Iran’s supreme leader. And he was close to having the means of carrying it out.”

“Then what about Hegseth?” Shalzed asked.

“What do you mean?” I replied, not sure what he meant.

Shalzed frowned. “Hegseth announced that the United States intends to kill Iranian troops even if they are wounded or attempting to surrender, which is completely against the law. He is in charge of the military, the U.S. is currently at war, and U.S. soldiers have the means to carry out his threat. Nevertheless, you’re still sure he was joking.”

That didn’t make any sense to me, but I didn’t know how to answer. “It’s completely different,” Yoni said.

“Why?” Shalzed asked.

“Because the United States would never actually do it,” Yoni replied.

“Maybe Iran wouldn’t actually launch nuclear missiles,” Shalzed said.

“I wouldn’t count on it,” I said quickly.

“Of course they would,” Yoni added. “Look at what they’ve done already.”

Shalzed paused. “So you decide what people mean not by what they say, but by what you already believe about them and their country?”

I shrugged. “Have you tasted kefir?” I asked, pointing to a container of mango Lighthouse kefir on the table. “If we don’t finish it now, it might spoil.”

“I have to go,” Yoni said. “Remember, by us it’s already night.”

I wished Yoni that he and his family should be safe, then turned to Shalzed. “You can’t expect Israel to take risks when Iran is threatening it with destruction,” I told him.

He took the cap off the kefir container and sniffed. “Maybe you’re right about Iran,” he said. “Maybe they would use nuclear weapons if they had them. But would you blame Iranian soldiers if they don’t risk surrendering now that Hegseth has threatened to kill them even if they do, and decide instead to keep fighting?”

Subscribe to Receive Shalzed's adventures in your inbox

Read More of Shalzed's Adventures

For the legal context of Hegseth’s statement from Just Security, click here.

shalzed drone and war etf

The Drone Fund: Should War Be an Investment?

by with No Comment shalzedstory

The Drone Fund: Should War Be an Investment?

Shalzed and Simon outside Cafe Maya, next to Amnesty International Headquarters in London

For investors, war can be profitable. A new fund seeks to capitalize on rising demand for drones and ammunition — but is the right way to boost your savings? Shalzed investigates.

The Drone Fund: Should War Be an Investment?

I was at home doing my taxes when Shalzed rang the doorbell. I buzzed him up. “Welcome,” I said as he came in the door.

“I wanted to. . .” he began. Then he noticed that I was working at my computer and asked if I was busy.

I smiled. “Just finishing up my taxes,” I told him.

He noticed a paper on my desk. “What’s that?” he asked, wrinkling his forehead.

“It’s the fact sheet for an investment a friend of mine recommended,” I replied. “I’m going to make a contribution to my retirement fund before I file, and I need to decide what to do with it.”

Shalzed picked up the paper. “A fund for drones and modern warfare?” he asked.

I shrugged. “With the current war in Iran, along with what’s been going on in Ukraine, defense spending is sure to go up,” I told him. “And now every military needs drones.”

Shalzed looked aghast. “You want to make money by investing in companies that build robots that kill people?” he asked.

I hadn’t really thought about that before, and suddenly I felt uncertain. “It’s just an investment,” I mumbled. Then I found myself inside the familiar black tunnel, and a moment later I was standing next to Shalzed in a large executive office. A middle aged man wearing a blue suit and blue tie was sitting behind a desk, staring at his computer. A name plaque on the desk said Matthew Bielski, CEO of Defiance ETFs. Behind him, a city skyline showed through a wall of glass.

“How can you encourage people to invest in companies that make weapons?” Shalzed asked.

Bielski shook his head in surprise. “Who are you?” he asked.

“I had been thinking of investing in your drone warfare fund,” I told him. “My friend is here to learn about human rights, and he has some questions.”

“Our funds have a solid track record of outperforming the market. I believe drone technology could be Wall Street’s next big winner.”

“But do you really want to profit from making machines that kill?” Shalzed asked.

Bielski frowned. “If it wasn’t for drones, Russia would have already taken over Ukraine.”

“What if drones are used for war crimes?” Shalzed asked.

“That’s the responsibility of whoever uses them, not us,” Bielski said.

A guy in his twenties carried a stack of papers into the office. “The DRNL documents are ready for you,” he told Bielski.

“Great,” Bielski said. “I’ll take care of it in a minute.”

“DRNL?” Shalzed asked.

“It’s a new, leveraged fund that gives twice the daily performance of companies making drones and their ammunition,” he said. Then he looked at me. “It’s for active, experienced traders,” he said.

I guess he could sense that I was a teacher with just a few thousand dollars in my IRA, not someone who played the stock market.

“So you’re hoping for more wars,” Shalzed said, pointing one of his long, blue fingers at Bielski. “Because every time there’s a war, you profit.”

The guy who brought the papers looked smug. “If they aren’t fighting a war, they’re arming for the next one,” he said.

Bielski clicked his tongue. “We don’t start wars,” he said. “The companies we buy stock in just give governments the tools they need to protect their citizens.”

“But buying the stock of companies that make weapons enables them to develop. Then you’re part of the whole war machine,” Shalzed said.

Bielski leaned back in his chair and rolled his eyes. “So just one question,” he began.

“What?” I asked, feeling uncomfortable with the silence.

“If you don’t like weapons, what do you think would be a better investment?”

“How about companies that make food?” Shalzed said quickly. “That’s something all people need.”

Bielski scoffed. “Do you really want to support factory farming? Or companies that make cheap processed food that’s a health disaster?”

“What about companies that make clothing?” Shalzed asked.

Bielski smiled. “Most of them operate sweatshops and many are accused of modern slavery.”

Shalzed wrinkled his forehead. “What about transportation? Trains, planes, and automobiles?”

“Ever heard of climate change?” Bielski asked. “Car companies are lobbying against rules requiring cars to be more efficient. Airplanes are one of the biggest polluters.”

Shalzed looked down.

“Well right now I just own an index fund,” I said.

Bielski grinned. “So congratulations, you already have weapons companies in your portfolio,” he said. “There are at least a dozen in the S&P 500.”

Suddenly I was in the tunnel, and a moment later back in my apartment. This time Shalzed was still with me. I turned to my computer. I don’t know why, but I felt it would be embarrassing for Shalzed to see how much money I made. But the tax program had timed out.

Shalzed picked up the fund’s fact sheet again. “So are you really going to buy stock in companies working to perfect drone warfare?” he asked.

I wasn’t sure. “The amount I’d invest is almost nothing compared to what companies are worth. It’s not going to make any difference,” I told him.

“If you see on the news that children were killed in a drone strike, do you want to feel like you had even a small part in that?” he asked. “When you see countries launching waves of drones, will it make you happy to think that means more orders?”

I swallowed. “I’m just trying to make my retirement account go up,” I said.

Shalzed turned towards the door, then stopped to glance at the drone fund fact sheet, still on my desk. “And do you want Earth fighting wars with even more advanced weapons by the time you retire?” he asked.

Subscribe to Receive Shalzed's adventures in your inbox

Read More of Shalzed's Adventures
Shalzed with Mike Waltz outside the UN

Before It’s Too Late

by with No Comment shalzedstory

Before It’s Too Late

Shalzed asks UN Ambassador Mike Waltz if a country is likely to become a threat someday, can you bomb it now?

Shalzed wtih UN Ambassador Mike Waltz outside the United Nations

The United States and Israel claimed self-defense as the justification for their attack on Iran. But even though Iran is a hostile country that has threatened the U.S. and Israel many times, it didn’t seem to be a significant threat right now. Shalzed confronts U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Mike Waltz with this question.

Before It’s Too Late

I was on the phone with my brother, who had moved to Israel four years ago. He was telling me about how his daughter was very upset about school being cancelled when the siren sounded. I hung up right away so he and his family could get to their shelter. Then Shalzed called.

“I don’t understand,” he said. “How could the U.S. and Israel launch such an attack?”

“Well, we can’t let Iran get nuclear weapons.”

“But that’s not a reason to start a war,” Shalzed said.

I figured Shalzed probably didn’t know much about Iran. Before I could say anything, though, I was in the black tunnel. By now I was used to it enough that I was no longer afraid, and I really wanted to find out how it worked. A moment later I was outside the United Nations in New York, with Shalzed next to me. A man wearing a blue suit with a U.S. flag pin on his jacket was standing nearby, trying to attach a lapel microphone to his jacket. “Ambassador Waltz,” Shalzed called.

The Ambassador turned and looked at Shalzed. “Who are you?” he asked.

“I don’t understand. Countries can only use force to defend themselves,” Shalzed began.

“I’m sorry, I’m just about to go live on Fox News,” Waltz replied, gesturing Shalzed and I to move along. A few steps away, a reporter was conferring with a cameraman.

“But didn’t the U.S. and Israel just violate the UN charter?” Shalzed persisted.

Waltz shook his head and sighed. “Absolutely not,” he said. “Iran has thousands of missiles and is attempting to develop nuclear weapons besides.”

“But how can you say it’s self-defense if they didn’t attack?” Shalzed asked.

“Almost ready,” the reporter called. “Do a sound check, please.”

Waltz nodded. “The Iranian government killed thousands of its own citizens in recent protests,” he said in a robot-like monotone. The reporter gave him a thumbs up. Then he continued in a normal voice, “Some say tens of thousands. We may never know the real number.”

“And that means you can bomb their nuclear facilities?” Shalzed asked.

“Iran’s leaders have been leading chants of death to America and death to Israel for decades,” I interjected. “They even put a clock in the center of Tehran counting down the days until Israel is destroyed.”

Shalzed looked shocked. “Well how can they do that? Didn’t the UN tell them to take it down?”

I laughed, and Waltz also chuckled. “No,” he said. “Evidently, there’s nothing against countdown clocks in the UN charter.”

The reporter walked over. “I’m sorry, we’re delayed just a couple of minutes,” she said. “They broke in with an update from Tel-Aviv.”

“What happened?” I asked, worried people may have been killed.

“Direct hit on a school. But it wasn’t occupied, no injuries.”

“You see, Iran doesn’t follow any international law,” Waltz said. “They shoot missiles at schools, they fire randomly at cities. Then we’re the ones that get criticized.”

“Can you say that when we’re live?” the reporter asked.

“Of course,” Waltz replied. “And I’ll also mention that right now they are carrying out aggression against Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States too. Then people make it out like the United States is the one that doesn’t follow the law.”

Shalzed crossed his hands against his chest. “I understand the government of Iran does bad things. But can that justify an invasion?”

The reporter looked at Waltz expectantly. I had a feeling she was interested to hear his reply, too.

“So should Israel wait until they have ten thousand missiles, many armed with nuclear warheads, and then it’s too late?” he asked.

“Israel can’t risk a nuclear armed Iran,” I added.

“Almost ready,” the cameraman called as he lifted a bulky tv camera onto his shoulder.

Waltz straightened his hair with his hand. “Bottom line,” he said. “Countries are entitled to defend themselves. Iran has been a threat in the past, and we have every reason to believe they will continue to be a threat in the future.”

“Say that on air,” the reporter said.

“But Iran wasn’t a threat right now,” Shalzed interjected. “And any country could potentially be a threat sometime in the future.”

A light on the camera turned on. “Five,” the cameraman said, then he started counting down.

The reporter stepped in front of us, right next to Waltz. As the light on the camera changed color she began. “I’m here at the United Nations with U.S. Ambassador Mike Waltz. Mr. Waltz, you just explained to the security council that the action against Iran is completely in keeping with international law. Give us a recap.”

As Waltz began speaking I was back in the black tunnel. I tried to feel around for any clues about what it was made of or how it operated, but before I found anything I was back in my apartment. My phone was ringing- it was my brother calling back.

“Everything alright?” I asked as I picked up.

“Yeah,” he said. “A missile got through the iron dome and hit a school. The building was destroyed, but no one was hurt.”

“Near you?” I asked.

“Just a few kilometers away. Thank God we’re fighting this war now, while Iran still doesn’t have nuclear weapons.”

I told him I was glad he was safe, then I shook my head. Once Iran got the bomb, it would be too late. But if every country struck before it was too late, war would also be endless.  

Subscribe to Receive Shalzed's adventures in your inbox

Read More of Shalzed's Adventures

Sources:

To read a transcript of Mike Waltz’s explanation given to the Security Council, click here and here. 

shalzed and simon looking at the megillah outside the library

Did It Work? Purim’s Hardest Question

by with No Comment shalzedstory

Did It Work? Purim’s Hardest Question

Survival brings power. Then what?

Shalzed and Simon look at the copies of megillah pages Simon is practicing from

Shalzed hears the story of Purim — and gets stuck on the ending. Yes, the Jews are saved. Yes, Haman’s plot fails. But then comes the part we don’t always linger on. Shalzed has some questions. . . 

Did It Work? Purim’s Hardest Question

It was Thursday night, and in addition to preparing a salad to bring with for Shabbat dinner, I had to practice the chapters of the megillah that I had committed to read on Purim. But Shalzed said he really wanted to take out more books on human rights but couldn’t without my card, so I agreed to meet him at the library.

When I got there he was waiting in the lobby, absorbed in a book titled The Last Utopia: Human Rights in History. I tapped him on the shoulder and he said he was ready to check out, and a few minutes later we were out the door.

“I’m sorry to be in such a rush,” I told him. “But I have to practice my megillah reading tonight.”

“Your what?” Shalzed asked.

I smiled. “Next week is Purim. We read the book of Esther.”

“You already know how to read, so why do you have to practice?”

I couldn’t help but laugh. “Yes, but the book of Esther is written on a Hebrew scroll. To chant it, you have to memorize all the cantillation marks along with all the vowels.”

He didn’t understand, so I stopped at a bench and showed him the copies of the Hebrew pages I had taken along in my backpack. Shalzed examined them carefully. “What’s this?” he asked, pointing to the section where the lines look different. There was only one word on the left, one on the right, and a blank space in the middle.

“It’s the ten sons of Haman,” I told him. “That’s the way their names are written.”

“Why?” he asked.

I shrugged. “Because they were all hanged at the same time. The tradition is to read all the names in one breath.”

“Hanged?” Shalzed looked aghast.

“Because Haman tried to destroy the Jewish people,” I explained.

“So I see you’re getting ready.” I recognized Rabbi Meyer’s voice behind me and turned around.

“I’ll be all set,” I said as we shook hands. Rabbi Meyer was the rabbi of Congregation Anshei Shalom. I went there most Shabbats, and that was where I would be reading the megillah.

“Why should Haman’s sons be hanged for a crime committed by their father?” Shalzed asked.

Rabbi Meyer gave him a funny look. I told him that Shalzed was a friend from far away who was interested in learning more about human rights. “It says in the Talmud that Haman’s sons had key parts in the plot,” Rabbi Meyer said. “There are many aspects of the Purim story that at first appear problematic, but the Talmud always provides an explanation.”

“Like for all the killing at the end?” I asked.

“What killing?” Shalzed added, looking confused.

Rabbi Meyer smiled. “In the last section of the megillah, the Jews turned the tables and were able to kill all those who had been planning to harm them. But the megillah uses the word ‘enemies’ to describe those the Jews killed, to emphasize that they weren’t innocent bystanders.”

“But just because someone is an enemy, that doesn’t mean it’s okay to kill them,” Shalzed said.

“Rabbi Meyer, I’m so glad to see you, I have to ask you a question,” a woman exiting the library said. I didn’t know her name, but I thought I recognized her from shul.

“Is it urgent? I have to pick up a book for my son, then get back to shul for ma’ariv.” He looked at me when he said that, but I didn’t respond. I had already told him that I wasn’t willing to go each evening, even though they usually needed help with a minyan.

“It’s about Shifra,” the woman said.

Rabbi Meyer nodded and they stepped to the side.

“See you on Shabbos,” I told him. Then I turned to Shalzed. “The megillah tells the story of how Haman rose to power and convinced the king to allow him to slaughter all the Jewish people.” I gestured to the papers I was practicing from. “The Jews were saved because at the last moment Mordechai and Esther changed the king’s mind. It’s only natural that then they wanted some revenge.”

Shalzed wrinkled his nose. “What about international agreements?” he asked.

I couldn’t help but laugh again. “The Purim story took place long ago, way before any of that,” I said.

“So long ago on Earth, a king could just decide to wipe out an entire people?”

“Pretty much,” I said. “That’s why at the end of the story the Jews did so much killing. They had to use their moment in power to create fear so no one would try to become another Haman.”

Shalzed considered. “Did it work?” he asked.

This caught me by surprise. “What do you mean?”

“Did killing lots of people prevent future plots against the Jews?”

I shrugged. I had never really thought about that. “I suppose,” I told him. “At the end of the megillah the Jewish people are secure.”

“And what about after?”

I thought for a moment. “I don’t know,” I said. “That’s when the Purim story ends, so it doesn’t say.”

Shalzed seemed surprised. “But history continues.”

A teenager on a skateboard passed by, staring at Shalzed. “Yo, Smurf!” he called. Then he picked up his skateboard and went into a store called ‘Cloud Nine Vape Shop’ right next to the library.

It made me angry, but Shalzed seemed unaffected. “What’s a Smurf?” he asked.

“Never mind,” I told him. “It’s just a stupid kid on a skateboard,” I said, more sharply than I had meant to. I put the papers back in my backpack and slung it over my shoulder. “It probably kept them safe at least for a while. As long as Mordechai and Esther were still in the palace and the same king was on the throne.”

“You said the Purim story happened a long time ago, and that’s why they had to rely on making their enemies afraid. What about today?” Shalzed asked. “If it happened today, would Mordechai and Esther still have tried to instill fear, or would they have felt safer because of human rights and the international system?”

I shrugged again.

Shalzed seemed surprised. “If even now people need to rely on fear to feel safe, will things ever be different?”

Subscribe to Receive Shalzed's adventures in your inbox

Read More of Shalzed's Adventures
shalzed end of war conference

Do Courts Make Wars Last Longer?

by with No Comment story

Do Courts Make Wars Last Longer?

Shalzed attends a conference on ‘The End of War’

Shalzed examines White chocolate matcha energy bites outside a conference on 'The End of War'

Can international courts help end wars — or do they unintentionally prolong them? Shalzed goes looking for answers. . . and also tries some new cookies at a conference.

Do Courts Make Wars Last Longer?

Shalzed heard about an academic conference titled “The End of War.” Personally, I doubted whether a bunch of college professors really had secrets that could help save the galaxy, but Shalzed was adamant about going. Since it was over President’s day weekend when I had off of school, I agreed.

When we arrived Shalzed was immediately drawn to a platter of round, green cookies next to the coffee. “Are these regenerative nutrient capsules to heal all who have been wounded?” he asked.

I laughed. “No,” I told him. I pointed to a small sign that said, ‘White chocolate matcha energy bites.’ He ate five, and then I steered him towards the hall where the sessions were because  people around the coffee table were starting to give him dirty looks.

There were some introductory speeches, and then a session titled ‘Climate Change as a Conflict Multiplier’ in which panelists took turns explaining how much worse today’s problems were going to become.

“They aren’t giving ways to make peace at all,” Shalzed whispered. I shrugged.

The next session was two women from different universities speaking about the role of international courts in ending wars. One was named Laurie Blank, and the other Daphné Richemond-Barak. Shalzed seemed upset as they explained why courts were of limited use in making peace and could actually end up making wars longer. When it was over, we went to the front because Shalzed had some questions.

As soon as Laurie got free from talking with someone else, Shalzed asked, “I don’t understand. Isn’t anything that holds people accountable a step in the right direction?”

“You’d think so,” she replied. “But remember that peace agreements are made by leaders. One of our key findings is that, ironically, leaders are usually very safe while a war is going on. It’s once the fighting stops that leaders personally are likely to face extreme danger.”

“What do you mean?” I asked. To me that sounded confusing.

She smiled. “When a war ends, often investigators are finally able to get access and document atrocities. That can lead to leaders being indicted. And if there is also a change of government, leaders might lose their immunity or ability to shield themselves from prosecution.”

Shalzed looked aghast. “Do you mean someone might prolong a war, causing suffering for millions, just for their own self-interest?” he asked.

That sounded all too real to me. “According to our research, that happens all the time,” Laurie said.

“Not being able to offer amnesty is also another issue,” Daphne added as the man she had been talking to started walking away.

“Amnesty for what?” I asked.

“War crimes, rebellion. . .” she began.

“The issue is that the International Criminal Court in the Hague is not obligated to honor any amnesty agreements, even if they’re offered by a government,” Laurie interrupted. “Militia members may be extra hesitant to lay down their arms since there is no way to offer assurance that the ICC won’t decide to prosecute them in the future.”

Shalzed’s jaw dropped. “But don’t war crimes have to be punished?” he asked.

Laurie pursed her lips. “Sure,” she said. “But our point is that it’s easy to sit safely far away and demand justice, but insisting that a peace agreement allow for prosecuting war crimes may prolong the fighting and suffering that goes with it.”

I didn’t like the way that sounded. “But if everyone knows they’re likely to get amnesty, what’s the point of having courts to prosecute war crimes to begin with?” I asked.

A man who seemed like he was the next presenter approached and signaled to Daphne that he needed to hook up his computer. She and Laurie both got up to go.

“I like the point you made about jurisdiction,” the man said as he took out his laptop.

Laurie smiled. “Thank you for attending our session,” she replied.

“I didn’t understand that either,” Shalzed said. “If international courts don’t have jurisdiction over conflicts that lead to wars, then what is their point?” he asked.

“They do have jurisdiction,” Laurie answered. “But often over only one side. For example, the International Court of Justice only hears disputes between countries. That means if a country is at war with a non-state armed group, the court has jurisdiction over the country only, but not the people it is fighting.”

“That’s why only Israel is on trial at the International Court of Justice, but not Hamas,” I added.

“Exactly,” Daphne replied. “And the International Criminal Court is supposed to have jurisdiction to prosecute all war crimes and crimes against humanity. But it can’t possibly look at everything, so it focuses only on what the prosecutor believes is most serious.

“So they pick and choose?” Shalzed asked.

“They have to. And when the prosecutor decides not to investigate a crime because it doesn’t seem serious enough, victims of those crimes get angry and say it’s not fair,” Daphne said.

The next presenter cleared his throat and glanced at the room, which was rapidly filling. Daphne took another step to go, but then a woman came and asked if she would autograph her book, titled Underground Warfare. People were still filing in, so she took a pen from purse. As she did so, the woman remarked that after listening to the talk she was starting to wonder if maybe we’d be better off without any international courts at all.

“Absolutely not,” Daphne said as she signed inside the front cover. “International courts have vital functions. We’re just pointing out that ending a war is a political decision, shaped by military, diplomatic, and economic conditions, not courts. That’s all.”

“And courts can easily complicate the peacemaking process rather than help,” Laurie added. “When a court gets involved while a war is still going, the court itself becomes a weapon as well.”

The woman put her signed book in her purse and gestured to the nearly full room. “The next session is titled ‘Hope as policy, peace as process,’ she said. “Everyone will want to come.” She scurried to take the last empty seat in the first row.

“Judges can at least document facts,” Shalzed said.

Daphne put her pen back in her purse and nodded. “That’s true, but courts do that best after a war is finished. While a war is still going on, they have limited ability to get full information, and are prone to being misled by propaganda from one or both of the sides.”

“Especially if not all parties to the conflict agree to cooperate,” Laurie added. Laurie and Daphne headed towards the stairs, and I sort of hoped Shalzed would follow their lead and decide to skip the next session. But instead, he found us two empty seats.

“I’m excited about this next speaker,” Shalzed said as we took our places.

I wrinkled my forehead. “Why?” I asked.

“If peace is a process, it must be about to finish.”

The man in front of us laughed and turned around. “Peace is a never-ending process,” he said.

Shalzed frowned. “Then does war ever end?”

Subscribe to Receive Shalzed's adventures in your inbox

Read More of Shalzed's Adventures

Source: The ideas in this piece are taken from a recent series of articles on the website Just Security, asking if there is a role for international courts in ending wars. Link here.  

shalzed and simon at pen america office

Free Speech, With an Exception

by with No Comment story

Free Speech, With an Exception

Shalzed Visits PEN America

Shalzed and Simon in the lobby of the Equitable Building in New York City

An Israeli comedian was blocked from performing in New York and Los Angeles by a throng of protesters. Sounds like something free speech advocates should be up in arms about, right? This week Shalzed visits the free speech advocacy organization PEN America to find out.

Free Speech, With an Exception

As I locked my bike outside the library, I remembered the time I first met Shalzed. He had been trying to leave with a book without checking out. Then I saw him right on the nearby corner of Main and 3rd Street, walking towards me.

“A comedian wasn’t allowed to perform because of protests,” he said.

I finished scrambling the dials on my lock and stood up to face him. “Let me take a random guess- the comedian was Israeli.”

“How did you know?” Shalzed asked in surprise.

I typed into my phone ‘Israel comedian cancel’ and quickly found the information. “His name is Guy Hochman. They cancelled on him once in New York and once in Los Angeles,” I said. “Because of anti-Israel protests.”

“But doesn’t that violate his freedom of expression?” Shalzed asked.

I noticed a link to a statement from Pen America opposing the cancellations. “Of course it does,” I told Shalzed. “And one of the largest free speech organizations in America says so too.”

Suddenly we were in the black tunnel, and a moment later in the lobby of the Equitable Building in the financial district of Manhattan. I saw right away on the list of tenants that PEN was on the 26th floor.

“Mr. Friedman,” Shalzed called to a bald, middle-aged man wearing a blue suit jacket and slacks, carrying a briefcase and coffee cup as he headed towards the elevator. “Can you explain why an Israeli comedian was not allowed to perform?”

Friedman stopped and sighed. “I understand what you’re referring to, and it’s a very sensitive situation.”

“Why?” Shalzed asked. “Isn’t everyone entitled to freedom of expression?”

Friedman shook his head. “Free speech protects against government censorship, not from the consequences of oppressive statements an individual has chosen to make or from private venues deciding not to host him.”

“Oppressive statements?” I asked.

“The Los Angeles venue asked him to sign a document condemning Israel for genocide, rape, starving, and torturing Palestinian civilians, and he refused,” Friedman said. “The cancellation was a direct consequence of that.”

“But that has nothing to do with the content of his performance,” Shalzed said. “And would you require any other performer to denounce their country before stepping on stage?”

“Are Palestinians required to denounce Hamas and the Oct. 7th massacre as a condition for free speech?” I added.

“I’m sorry, I have a meeting,” Friedman said. He turned and pushed the elevator call button.

“Are you saying that even though you oppose censorship, you’re still okay with venues cancelling someone based on their nationality?”

Friedman turned back around. “It’s not his nationality,” he said. “It’s accountability for him saying he’s proud to be Israeli and to have served in the IDF.”

“Accountability for his choices, or for where he happened to be born?” Shalzed asked.

I wrinkled my forehead. “I thought you oppose the cancellations,” I said.

A man walking by carrying a gym bag stopped by Friedman to say hello. Friedman looked like he wanted him to stick around, but the man said he was in a hurry to get to his new strength and conditioning boot camp. While they talked I pulled out my phone and clicked the PEN link again. The page I saw before had now been replaced. Now there was just a short note: “On further consideration, PEN America has decided to withdraw its previous statement.” My mouth dropped open. As the man with the exercise bag walked away, I turned my phone so Friedman could see it. “Now you think cancelling the shows was okay?”

Friedman glanced towards the indicator above the elevators, which showed one descending past the fourth floor. “Local Palestinian groups told us his performance would have made them feel unsafe.”

“Would you allow a Palestinian performer to be cancelled if a Jewish group said it made them feel unsafe?” I asked.

“Safety means different things when there’s a power imbalance,” Friedman said. “And platforming isn’t neutral. Our mission is to protect artists who are vulnerable or silenced, not public figures who justify oppression.”

The elevator chimed and the doors opened. Friedman moved to the side so several people could exit.

“Why did you at first condemn the cancellation, then change your mind?” I asked.

Friedman shook his head. “Many staff and donors have especially strong feelings about this case. As a small organization, we focus on issues where we can speak with a strong and united voice.”

He stepped into the elevator, quickly pressed a button, and waited for the door to close.

“With Jewish and Israeli writers and artists being cancelled right and left, I’d think this is actually where you ought to focus,” I said as the elevator doors closed.

I turned to Shalzed, who was shaking his head. Then we were back in the black tunnel, and I was once again outside the library. I looked around, but no sign of Shalzed. I wondered whether he was changing his opinion about Earth.

I went into the library and saw the new display in the lobby was a table of banned books. The sign above it read, “Stand With the Banned.” I wondered whether my own library would feature books by Israeli or Jewish authors, or whether it would give in to protests or try to make writers sign statements as a condition for being included, too?

Subscribe to Receive Shalzed's adventures in your inbox

Read More of Shalzed's Adventures

Sources:

Coverage of Pen’s reversal from the Algemeiner

On the L.A. cancellation from AOL

Pen’s revised statement is here