I confess: When it first occurred, I didn’t think that Henry Louis Gates’s contretemps with Sergeant James Crowley of the Cambridge police could be much of “a teachable moment.” At the time, the whole episode, so vastly blown out of proportion, seemed to me best forgotten, a not especially surprising misunderstanding in an unusually awkward context.
But then President Obama weighed in, and the need to make of the episode a teachable moment became quite clear. For what is a teachable moment? It is an opportunity generated by external events, one from which important lessons can be learned. And the first lesson to be learned, in the case at hand, was surely that no one, having admitted to ignorance of the facts, should then proceed to a conclusion. No one — and especially not the president of the United States, who in fact began his first remarks on the matter by saying, “I don’t know all the facts,” and less than a minute later asserted that the Cambridge police had behaved stupidly.
Given the publicity that assertion begat, a genuine teachable moment arrived. But it turned out to be rather different from what might have been anticipated, for in the end, the president provided the occasion, not the message; it was Gates and Crowley who turned their encounter around. Gates, presumably speaking for both men, made clear that we’d all be better off if we had both more appreciation for the difficulty of law enforcement and for the special sensitivities of people of color, so often the victims of unwarranted suspicion, or, as we have come to call it, “racial profiling.”
The thing about teachable moments is that they require a teacher, someone who can, in fact, see the lesson or lessons to be learned and make good use of the circumstance. Here, Obama excelled; the “beer summit” was a smash success.
Like trees that fall in a forest where there’s no one to hear them, potential teachable moments come and go in profusion, unheard, unused. I have in mind one such, which might have been an immensely important opportunity but which was, as far as I can tell, of only the most peripheral consequence. (Oddly, President Obama, through no fault of his own, had a part to play in this one, too.)
In a lengthy report by Ethan Bronner in The New York Times of July 29, we learn that in response to the perception that the United States is pressuring Israel on the matter of settlements, “several thousand settlers gathered on a dozen West Bank hills” to establish unauthorized outposts. No big news there; that sort of thing happens frequently, although the goal this time was especially ambitious. But the Israeli public is used to these shenanigans, and little was made of the incident.
Bronner’s article included a tidbit of information that might have served to frame a teachable moment — might have, but did not. One Rabbi Yigael Shandorfi, described as a “leader of a religious academy” in a West Bank outpost, used “insulting Hebrew slang for a black man” to refer to President Obama and called him “that Arab they call a president.” (Shandorfi, it turns out, was found guilty in February 2008 of disturbing the peace, this because he instigated “hooliganism” by encouraging young people to assault Israeli soldiers and damage military vehicles as the army was trying to clear an illegal outpost. He was sentenced to 140 hours of community service.)
This is what is said of the man who leads Israel’s unshakable ally and who has repeatedly reaffirmed the deep friendship that exists between our two countries. This is what is said by a man whose fantastical intoxications jeopardize the Jewish state — not because Obama may be offended, but because Shandorfi poisons hundreds of young people, giving them a sense of divine entitlement that is ominous, turning them into near-carbon copies of Hamas militants, down to their face-covering masks.
Thinking, naively as it turns out, that Shandorfi’s statement might have scandalized the country, I called an old friend in Jerusalem, a long-time peace activist and a noted journalist. “So?” she responded. “Happens all the time. And worse.” She went on to describe the frequent use among some Israelis of the phrase “eved ki yimloch,” rule by a slave, to refer to the Obama administration.
The question: Where is the teacher who can issue the appropriate j’accuse? A leading rabbi, perhaps? The minister of religious services? The prime minister himself?
Worst case: The tree in the forest falls. There are people all around. They are deaf, and hear nothing as the tree comes down on their heads.
The Forward welcomes reader comments in order to promote thoughtful discussion on issues of importance to the Jewish community. In the interest of maintaining a civil forum, the Forward requires that all commenters be appropriately respectful toward our writers, other commenters and the subjects of the articles. Vigorous debate and reasoned critique are welcome; name-calling and personal invective are not. While we generally do not seek to edit or actively moderate comments, the Forward reserves the right to remove comments for any reason.
Poor hatefully anti-Israel Leonard Fein! Seeking fervently for a way to attack Israel, with so little to work with. So what does this latest absurdity tell us (again) about the Forward's resident anti-Israel far-left extremist?
(1) He wants you to believer that Obama, the most anti-Israel president in history, who is engaged in a barrage of anti-Israel attacks is, "the man who leads Israel’s unshakable ally and who has repeatedly reaffirmed the deep friendship that exists between our two countries". That is unfortunately not enlightening, and perhaps worse, so silly as to not be terribly entertaining.
(2) He wants you to despise the "settlers" because one of them allegedly made an apparently racist comment (at least one that could be construed as racist). This is such an absurd stretch of an argument, that it is, well ... absurd. And also not terribly entertaining.
(3) Fein is apparently running out of "stories" with which to attack Israel. This is clearly not at all entertaining (but perhaps hopeful in that readers may finally sicken of his gratuitous venom).
But perhaps the real "teachable moment" is that while Fein hacks and whacks at Israel, nothing falls down, people get bored, and begin to realize there is nothing worth hearing. Very unentertaining.
It is hypocritical for Frank to call others "hateful."
What a despicable note from-Frank (Aug 6)! Leonard Fein is one of the most brilliant writers that The Forward has. His analyses of Israel, a country he loves, but whose actions are often self-defeating and HATEFUL, are honest and objective. He cares very deeply about Israel which is why he is critical of some its actions, its leaders and its arrogance towards other peoples. He would be no friend of Israel if all he did was praise everything Israel did, if he agreed with everything the Israeli government did. A true friend is one that praises what is good and points out what is wrong and why. That's why Leonard Fein is indispensible to us-he tells it like it is and is not in Israel!
How in the world Leonard Fein manage to link Gates/Clowly episode to the racist remark of an Orthodox extremist? Are we expected to identify the two cases, treat them as being of the same nature? Any intelligent person should be insulted. This is a pure fabrication, self-serving tactic, albeit consistent with the rest of Mr.Fein's publications.
How in the world Leonard Fein manage to link Gates/Clowly episode to the racist remark of an Orthodox extremist? Are we expected to identify the two cases, treat them as being of the same nature? Any intelligent person should be insulted. This is a pure fabrication, self-serving tactic, albeit consistent with the rest of Mr.Fein's publications.