A monk said to Nasrudin: ‘I am so detached that I never think of myself, only of others.’
Nasrudin answered: ‘I am so objective that I can look at myself and if I were another person; so I can afford to think of myself.’
—In The subtleties of the inimitable Mulla Nasrudin by Idries Shah

There are seven ages, each of which is separated from the previous one by a world catastrophe.
—Buddhist Scriptures

God made everything out of nothing. But nothingness shows through.
—Paul Valery

⁽⁰⁾

That started very early on, and then I guess I tried to close up this fissure with something that was accessible to me, and all I had was writing. My inspiration came especially in the 1950s through the Vienna Group founded by writer H.C. Artmann. It showed me that if you want to say something, you have to let the language itself say it, because language is usually more meaningful than the mere content that one wishes to convey. My training in music and composition then led me to a kind of musical language process in which, for example, the sound of the words I play with has to expose their true meaning against their will so to speak.

Marika Griehsel: Some time has now passed since the announcement that you have been awarded the Nobel Prize in Literature for 2004. Do you think this will affect your future writing?

Elfriede Jelinek: I have the feeling it will influence my future writing to the extent that without any material worries I could develop a greater ease, even lightheartedness, in my writing. That might be good for my language process, which as I said tends to be compositional. It could draw from a greater reservoir of freedom. The irony could develop an even greater ease.

Marika Griehsel: What role has Internet had for you as a writer?

Elfriede Jelinek: Internet is exemplary for me. I do not want to have the feeling of writing “for eternity,” so to speak. The fleetingness of the Internet has therefore become very attractive to me. At some point I set up a heading on my homepage called “Notizen,” or “Notes,” in which I try to capture the fleetingness of jotting things down, similar to emails, which on the one hand acknowledges current events but on the other hand is not carved in stone. Instead it is more like something you write in wet sand with your finger. You can remove it at any time, whereas a book is more an object that “remains,” as it were, something you hold in your hand.

Marika Griehsel: In your opinion what is the most pressing social issue in Western society today?

Elfriede Jelinek: That is very difficult to answer. I think isolation is one of the greatest problems, an ever-growing obstacle to political solidarity. In the past we would’ve said: to the development of class consciousness. The petty-bourgeoisification of society, with its hopes of climbing socially and its apprehension that a fall could come at any moment (there are no “jobs for life” anymore; everyone is at risk; jobs are becoming increasingly insecure; each individual’s survival is becoming more and more precarious, yet this doesn’t seem to lead to greater solidarity with others in a similar situation) - this all seems very dangerous to me. Eroding solidarity paradoxically makes a society more susceptible to the construction of substitute collectives and fascisms of all kinds.

Marika Griehsel: As a Nobel Laureate you will have the opportunity to nominate for the Nobel Literature Prize in the future. What kind of literature would you like to see awarded a Nobel Prize?

Elfriede Jelinek: Literature that keeps employing new linguistic and formal modes of expression to draft a panorama of society as a whole while at the same time exposing it, tearing the masks from its face - for me that would be deserving of an award.

Translation by Allison Brown

© Nobel Web AB

Reproduced here with permission from Nobel Foundation, Sweden.

Elfriede Jelinek is 2004 recipient of Nobel Prize in Literature. For more biographical information, please visit Noble Foundation.

⁽¹⁾

"I am an atheist!" the man replied.

"Okay, Okay," Raful demanded impatiently, "but a Jewish atheist or a Christian atheist?"

Well, I myself am a 100% atheist. And I am increasingly worried that the Israeli-Palestinian struggle, which dominates our entire life, is assuming a more and more religious character.

THE HISTORICAL CONFLICT began as a clash between two national movements, which used religious motifs only as a decoration.

The Zionist movement was non-religious from the start, if not anti-religious. Almost all the Founding Fathers were self-declared atheists. In his book "Der Judenstaat", the original charter of Zionism, Theodor Herzl said that "we shall know how to keep (our clergymen) in their temples." Chaim Weitzman was an agnostic scientist. Vladimir Jabotinsky wanted his body to be cremated - a sin in Judaism. David Ben-Gurion refused to cover his head even at funerals.
All the great rabbis of the day, both Hassidim and their opponents, the Missnagdim, condemned Herzl and cursed him ferociously. They rejected the basic thesis of Zionism, that the Jews are a "nation" in the European sense, instead regarding the Jews as a holy people held together by observance of the divine commandments.

Moreover, in the eyes of the rabbis, the Zionist idea itself was a cardinal sin. The Almighty decreed the exile of the Jews as punishment for their sins. Therefore, only the Almighty Himself may revoke the punishment and send the Messiah, who will lead the Jews back to the holy land. Until then, it is strictly prohibited to "return en masse". By organizing mass immigration to the country, the Zionists rebel against God and, worst of all, hold up the coming of the Messiah. Some Hassidim, like the Satmar sect in America, and a small but principled group in Israel, the Neturei Karta (Guardians of the City) in Jerusalem, still adhere to this belief.
True, the Zionists expropriated the symbols of Judaism (the Star of David, the candlestick of the Temple, the prayer shawl that was turned into a flag, even the name "Zion") but that was only utilitarian manipulation. The small religious faction that joined Zionism (the "Religious Zionists") was a marginal group.

Before the Holocaust, we learned in the Zionist schools in Palestine to treat with pitiless scorn everything that was "exile Jewish" - the Jewish religion, the Jewish Stetl, the Jewish social structure (the "inverted pyramid"). Only the Holocaust changed the attitude towards the Jewish past in the diaspora, referred to in Hebrew as "Exile".)

Ben-Gurion made some concessions to the religious factions, including the anti-Zionist Orthodox. He released some hundreds of Yeshiva-students from military service and set up a separate "state-religious" school system. His aim was to acquire convenient coalition partners. But these steps were based on the assumption (common to all of us at the time) that the Jewish religion would evaporate anyhow under the burning Israeli sun and disappear altogether in one or two generations.

All this changed in the wake of the Six-day War. The Jewish religion staged an astounding comeback.

ON THE Palestinian side, something similar happened, but against a quite different background.
The Arab national movement, too, was born under the influence of the European national idea. Its spiritual fathers called for the liberation of the Arab nation from the shackles of Ottoman rule, and later from the yoke of European colonialism. Many of its founders were Arab Christians.
When a distinct Palestinian national movement came into being, following the Balfour Declaration and the setting up of the British Government of Palestine, it had no religious character. In order to fight it, the British appointed a religious personality to the leadership of the Palestinian community in Palestine: Hajj Amin al-Husseini, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, who quickly assumed the leadership of the Palestinian struggle against the Zionist immigration. He endeavored to give a religious face to the Palestinian-Arab rebellion. Accusing the Zionist of designs on the Temple Mount with its holy Islamic shrines, he tried to mobilize the Muslim peoples in support of the Palestinians.

The Mufti failed miserably, and his failure played a part in the catastrophe of his people. The Palestinians have all but obliterated him from their history. In the 1950s, they idolized Gamal Abd-al-Nasser, the standard-bearer of secular, pan-Arab nationalism. Later, when Yasser Arafat founded the modern Palestinian national movement, he did not distinguish between Muslims and Christians. Right up to his death, he insisted on calling for the liberation of the "mosques and churches" of Jerusalem.

At one stage of its development, the PLO called for the creation of a "Democratic secular state, where Muslims, Jews and Christians will live together". (Arafat did not like the term "secular", preferring "la-maliah", meaning "non-sectarian".)

George Habash, the leader of the "Arab Nationalists" and later of the "Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine", is a Christian.

This situation changed with the outbreak of the first intifada, at the end of 1987. Only then did the Islamist movements, Hamas and Islamic Jihad, start to take over the national struggle.
THE ASTOUNDING victory of the Israeli army in the Six-day war, which looked like a miracle, effected a profound political and cultural change in Israel. When the shofar sounded at the Western Wall, the religious youth, which had until then been vegetating on the fringe, occupied the center of the stage.

Suddenly it was discovered that the religious education system, which had been set up by Ben-Gurion as a political bribe and contrary to his own convictions, had been quietly turning out a fanatical religious product. The religious youth movement, which had suffered all these years from feelings of humiliation and inferiority, was filled with zeal and started the settlement drive, leading the main national effort: the annexation of the occupied territories.

The Jewish religion itself underwent a mutation. This mutant shed all universal values and became a narrow, militant, xenophobic tribal creed, aiming at conquest and ethnic cleansing. The religious-Zionists of the new sort are convinced that they are fulfilling the will of God and preparing the ground for the coming of the Messiah. The "national-religious" cabinet ministers, that had always belonged to the moderate wing of the government, gave way to a new, extremist leadership with tendencies towards religious fascism.

Israel has not become a religious state. It still has a large secular majority. According to the authoritative Israeli Government Bureau of Statistics, only 8% of Israeli Jews define themselves as "Orthodox" (Haredim), 9% as "religious" (meaning Religious Zionists), 45% as "secular, non-religious" and 27% as "secular, traditional".

However, because of their role in the settlement enterprise, the "religious" have acquired a huge influence over the political process. They have practically prevented any move towards peace with the Palestinians. They have also provoked a religious reaction on the other side.
THE PALESTINIAN resistance to the occupation, which reached a peak with the outbreak of the first intifada in 1987, has given a big push to the religious forces. Until then, these had been growing quietly (not without the encouragement of the occupation authorities, which saw in them a counterweight to the secular PLO.)

The first intifada led to the Oslo agreement and brought Yasser Arafat back to Palestine. But the new Palestinian authority failed in its aim of putting an end to the occupation and establishing a secular Palestinian state. With settlements continually expanding all over the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, the Palestinian public increasingly tended to support armed resistance. In this struggle, and with the limited means available, the religious factions excelled. A religious person is more ready to sacrifice his life in a suicide attack than his secular cousin.

The anger of the Palestinian public over the corruption that has infected sections of the secular Fatah leadership (but not the ascetic Yasser Arafat, whose reputation remained clean) has increased even more the popularity of the religious, whose honesty is unquestioned.
FOR YEARS I have been haunted by a nightmare: that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict would change from a national to a religious confrontation.

A national conflict, terrible as it may be, is soluble. The last two centuries have seen many national wars, and almost all of them ended in a territorial compromise. Such conflicts are basically logical, and can be terminated in a rational way.

Not so religious conflicts. When all sides are bound by divine commandments, the attainment of a compromise becomes far more difficult.

Religious Jews believe that God promised them all of the holy land. Thus, giving away any of it to "foreigners" is an unforgivable sin. In the eyes of Muslim believers, the whole country is a Waqf (religious trust), and it is therefore absolutely forbidden to surrender any part of it to unbelievers. (When the Caliph Omar conquered Palestine some 1400 years ago, he declared it a Waqf. His motive was quite practical: to prevent his generals from dividing the land between themselves, as was their wont.)

By the way, the evangelical fundamentalists who dominate Washington at this time also see the Holy Land as a religious property, to which the Jews must return in order to make possible the second coming of Jesus Christ.

Is a compromise between these forces possible? Certainly yes, but it is much more difficult. A devout Muslim is allowed to declare a Hudna (armistice) for a hundred years and more, without condemning his soul to hell. Ariel Sharon, who began the evacuation of settlers, spoke about "long-range temporary arrangements". In politics, "temporary" measures have a tendency to become permanent.

But wisdom, sophistication and a lot of patience are needed to reach a resolution of the conflict in these circumstances.

On the day Arafat died, many Israelis were angry with me for saying (in a Haaretz interview) that we shall yet long for this secular leader, who was both willing and able to make peace with us. I said that his elimination removes the last obstacle to the rise of Islamic fundamentalism in Palestine and the entire Arab world.

One did not need to be a prophet to see that.

Originally published in Gush-Shalom, Feb 19, 2006/

⁽⁰⁾

Italian cheeses are very regional, and to appreciate them fully one must understand the geography and the culture of the country. Each region in Italy produces various specific varieties from the northern Alps to the boot and islands, and when it comes to cheeses, regional exclusivity is the norm. If you are visiting a city in Tuscany or one in Sicily, you should expect only those cheeses produced from that region to be sold with only a few exceptions.

Cheese production in Italy began as a need to preserve milk and to provide a source of protein for workers, travelers and families throughout the winter months. I will discuss the most famous varieties of Italian cheeses that can be readily found here in the United States, as well as tips for storing cheese to best retain it's freshness.

How to Keep and Serve Cheese
It is best to keep cheese in a dark, humid, ventilated room, at a constant temperature of about 45-50 F. If you are refrigerating your cheese, it is best to store in the vegetable section in perforated paper or cheesecloth to allow air to go through. Always try to serve cheese at room temperature to allow the full flavor to develop.

Here are a few popular Italian cheeses found in the US:

Parmesan - Production of true parmigiano-reggiano is carefully regulated and can only be made in a certain zone around the city of Parma between the months of April and November. To ensure you are buying "real" parmesan, look for the words parmigiano-reggiano stamped all over the rind. Parmesan is a grainy, firm cheese with full flavor, and well-aged cheese will be light straw colored. Parmesan is great just simply paired with fruit or good crusty bread, and makes a tasty topping for most pasta dishes. When cooking with parmesan, often the simpler recipes such as Risotto Parmesan allow the flavor of the cheese to shine through.

Gorgonzola - This cheese originates from the Po valley in Lombardy. This is another protected cheese with strict regulations, and is now produced year round. Gorgonzola is a soft, creamy cheese with blue or green veins or flecks running through it. It has a strong pungent flavor, so a little goes a long way. I like to use this cheese in a cream sauce to top gnocchi in Gnocchi Gorgonzola, or in combination with other Italian cheeses in a sauce for Pasta With Four Cheeses.

Mozzarella - This is one of the most commonly sold Italian cheeses in America today, although most of the mozzarella we find in our grocery stores differs greatly in taste and texture from the fresh handmade versions made in Italy. The American mozzarella is generally denser, drier and lacks the nutty milky-sweet flavor of the Italian cheese. Mozzarella can be eaten as a table cheese, but most Americans prefer to use it melted on pizza, lasagna and other baked dishes. The region around Naples, Italy is said to produce the best mozzarella in the world. It is made from the milk of water buffalo and can now be found in specialty stores here in the States as mozzarella di bufala. It is very perishable though, so use it soon after purchasing. If you find good fresh mozzarella, one of the best ways to serve it is simply with a drizzle of good olive oil, as in my recipe for the famous recipe Insalata Caprese. Another great recipe that uses mozzarella in a baked dish is Home Style Lasagna.

Asiago - Here is another cow's milk cheese from northern Veneto, with a somewhat sharp flavor, and can be found in three forms: soft, medium and hard. It is often eaten as a table cheese with a few slices of good salami, crusty bread and a fruity red wine such as Dolcetto d'Alba. It is great on certain pastas and is usually less expensive than parmesan.

Provolone - This popular cheese can be found throughout southern Italy. It is an oily, simple flavored cheese that acquires it's flavor after it has been aged for several months. Often served in sandwiches, why not try my recipe for Asparagus Rollups for a nice change?

Pecorino - The most famous type of pecorino is Romano, although pecorino Sardo (made in Sardinia) is also readily available. It is another oily cheese made from sheep's milk with a sharp, salty flavor, that is to the southern Italians what parmesan is to those in Northern Italy. The flavor of pecorino intensifies that of simpler foods, such as you will find in my Fave con Pecorino recipe.

Ricotta - Made from the by-product of cheese making, this "cheese" is actually a dairy product rather than a cheese. In Italy, ricotta is primarily made from the whey of sheep's milk, and sometimes goat or cows milk. In the US, the ricotta we find in our stores in made from cows milk and is more moist and sweeter in flavor than the Italian variety. Ricotta Gnocchi are much easier to make than potato gnocchi, and go well with almost any sauce. Ricotta salata, a pressed, dried version made in Sicily is the perfect topping for Pasta alla Norma.

These are a just a few of more popular types of Italian cheeses, from the hundreds of varieties available. The next time you are in a good cheese specialty store, ask the merchant to let you try a taste a few of the imported Italian cheeses. I am sure you will enjoy them as much as I do!

Buon Appetito!

Originally published in www.italianfoodforever.com

⁽⁰⁾

According to a new report published recently in the journal Science, complex decisions are best handled by the unconscious mind. Researchers at the University of Amsterdam conducted a series of experiments on purchasing decisions and found that, while conscious deliberation is good for making simple decisions, for more complicated choices it's often better to sleep on it, then simply go with your gut.

Conscious thought does not always lead to the best decisions because it has low capacity. We can only consciously think of a small number of things at any given time, which can lead us to focus on minor details or only a small subset of relevant information. And because we can only focus on a small number of details at once, we are not very consistent with multiple evaluations of the same choices, since we may choose to focus on different attributes each time. This leads to what has been called "option paralysis" because we keep coming to different conclusions.

Our unconscious mind, on the other hand, is capable of integrating large amounts of information, although with less precision. For the Amsterdam university experiment, researchers postulated that, because conscious thought is so precise, it would lead to good decisions over simple matters, where only one or two attributes were involved. However, because unconscious thought has such high capacity, it would lead to better decisions over more complex matters.

They called this hypothesis "deliberation-without-attention" and they tested it using four studies on consumer choices, including some in a laboratory setting and some using real shoppers. One study involved participants reading positive and negative information about four hypothetical cars. Some were then asked to think about the cars for four minutes and choose one. Others were distracted with another task for four minutes before making a choice. While those who had time to think about their choice made good decisions when the information was simple (only four attributes listed per vehicle), they more often made poorer choices when the information became more complex (12 attributes listed per vehicle). In another study, shoppers were quizzed about their purchases upon leaving an IKEA store and a department store. They were asked specific questions about the cost of their items, how much they had known about them before coming to the store, and how much time they thought about their purchases before they bought them. Follow-up phonecalls revealed that shoppers who spent more time deliberating about simple purchases (such as kitchen accessories) and less time deliberating about more complex purchases (such as furniture) were ultimately more satisfied with their choices.

In his recent book blink, former New York Times science reporter Malcolm Gladwell wrote about similar properties of the unconscious mind. Gladwell talks about "thin slicing," which refers to its ability to find patterns in certain situations based on very narrow slices of experience. According to Gladwell, what some people call intuition or that "gut" feeling, is really grounded in logic and shaped by our knowledge and experience with the world - we just aren't necessarily able to easily articulate it. Researchers from the Amsterdam study point out that, although they focused on consumer products, "there is no a priori reason to assume that the deliberation-without-attention effect does not generalize to other choices - political, managerial or otherwise."
So to all our new MPs in the House: deliberate, debate, discuss. Then go home and sleep on it before making a decision. Canada will be better off if you do.

Originally published on March 3, 2006.

Dr. David Takayoshi Suzuki is distinguished Canadian geneticist who has attained prominence as a science broadcaster and an environmental activist. He is also a co-founder of the David Suzuki Foundation.

⁽⁰⁾