I was unsure if I wanted to join in this conversation, since it seems like everyone was carrying on so admirably without me! There are only a few things I want to introduce into the mix.

RE: shadow/light. It immediately made me think of Whitman's poem (Song of Myself) in which he said "Do I contradict myself? Very well then, I contradict myself. I am large, I contain multitudes." And mostly I think life is large, vastly complex and vastly simple, and besides, light and shadow can only be perceived by the perceiver. Even the shadow itself has no intrinsic value.

RE: home and displacement. My family were forced out of their ancestral home, their gold and heirlooms burned down and melted. There is literally nothing left except an old, burn-scarred majong table and one single coin that my family was able to recover. (Cultural Revolution). There is nothing like the pain of having your home, that one single place of sanctuary and safety, violated and stripped from you, regardless of the reason or justification.

RE: artist != work. It can be argued that the worst and dirtiest things on the planet tends to create the most beauty because, maybe, that would be where yearning and desire for beauty would be sharpest. Besides, most people/artists believe that they themselves are merely the vessel for divine breath (inspiration), few actually believe that the work originates from themselves. I don't remember who said it, but it was along the lines that he was not the painter, merely the brush.

RE: anti-zionist = anti-semitic. Anecdotal evidence aside ("No one I've ever met..."), I find this to be a terribly limiting statement, one that closes the door and assumes a great many things about the millions and millions of people you've never met. I've never met more things and people than I can count, I would not be so brash as to assume the tiny limited sphere of my exprience would be representative of the whole.

The commentary about the Jewish state is fascinating. I'm reminded that human interpretation of God's wishes causes the most suffering out of any form of destruction, man made or natural. Think of the Crusades, the Holocaust, the Rwandan genocide... People have such a need to be superior, don't they??? I hate that about humans.

Addendum:
Just wanted to reiterate that my example below is a really bad one re: nation creating, but it is only intended to illustrate the point, however badly, that the concept of creating a nation is inherently very, very complex, involved, and has deep, big consequences.

Wow - I think the discussion has gotten around to some really interesting points about how to deal with the light/dark in everyone and being careful not to idolize someone who seems not to have a dark side.

I think what I want to share/contribute to this conversation is about the forming of a nation, which seems to be the topic that Freya was addressing.

Except in the case of the early humans spreading out, creating a nation ALWAYS means pushing out or pushing over someone else. We Americans (North and South) pushed out the natives. The Angles and the Saxons pushed out the Celts in the England, Ireland, and Scotland. Even "The Velvet Revolution" in Eastern Europe in the 1990s wreaked havoc - Formerly East Germans were stuck under a government they didn't vote for, West Germany. Fifteen years later, there's still major tension between the two parts of the country that were only arbitrarily divided that way for 50 years.

It's absolutely clear that the Jews needed somewhere to exist in peace after WWII. There are many reasons to choose Israel, and though of course, there are many other ways the Jews could have lived without founding their own sovereign nation (which inherently means taking some part of another sovereign nation). Creating a nation was a political action, and creating it where it is was also a political action.

I agree that there were also religious reasons to pick the current site of Israel, but a political action is a political action, even when religion is involved. And a political action tied up with religion is all the more volatile and controversial because it deals with deeply held moral traditions.

I would be pretty mad, as a New Yorker, and as an American, if Manhattan was forcibly taken away from our country to be given back to someone who we kicked out centuries ago. I am pretty mad, as a decent human being, that people did that all those years ago, and I'm pretty mad that we still don't treat Native Americans very well. And if I were an outside observer to the process, I certainly would hope I would be smart enough to say "Holy moley - don't you see that's going to cause a lot of trouble? That's going to be a great big mess! I don't think that's going to be helpful to anyone, I think it's only going to cause problems!" Some Americans would be behind it, saying that it's their due, some Americans would go ballistic and develop a hatred for a people they previously felt sympathy for, some people would have business interests that would be made or broken by a change like that.

It's not the greatest comparison - there's no catalyst to cause the world to demand a new place for Native Americans. And it's also a what's-done-is-done, I don't mean to say by this that the creation of Israel was a mistake and we should try to undo it. Cancelling a nation is just as big of a mess and creating one, and I am not against the idea of the Jews having a place to call their own.

I guess my point is: Just because someone said "Ack! I think this whole Israel thing is a bad idea!" doesn't mean she was an anti-semite. Considering how things have developed there and how much violence surrounds the borders of Israel, you could say she's a visionary.

It's true, it doesn't HAVE to be that way, but there are many strong forces making it a mess and keeping it a mess - Ms. Stark seems to have predicted correctly.

Depending on who you blame for the current mess, you may see this as mean pessimism or lack of faith or hatred or lack of trust for the Jews OR for the Arabs, OR for the rest of the forces who back up both sides.

I like what carolyn said about shadow and light. You can use that analogy with so many things on this planet. Beautiful plants that are poisonous. Majest animals that will eat you alive. The earth itself – full of so many wonderful things to experience, as well as countless things that will sustain us, but in a flash the earth can do us serious harm: tsunamis, tornados, hurricanes, earthquakes, and so on. The earth is neither all good or all evil, it just is. As humans are, too, I think. Full of shadow and light. Sadly, some just have way too much shadow.

What an amazing post and interesting comments. I was struck three times....First of all, I just read this morning that what Germany did to the Jews in the holocaust had some of its roots and inspiration in what the Americans did to the millions and millions of Native Americans during the formation of our country. Europeans displaced an entire continent of native people on a scale that is mind-boggling and yet rarely discussed. The other two things that struck me were also kinds of synchronicity: I am reading The Education of Little Tree right now (and so was horrified to hear the truth behind the identity of the author). I am also a member of the Order of Interbeing, led by Thich Nhat Hanh.

I'm not sure why I'm sharing this, except to say that I'm grateful to see such an important discussion taking place and being able to benefit from the information and interaction. Thanks to all who shared here.

Bravo Candace. Thank you for sharing a view which I believe to be true, but isn't often heard in North America.

Although I am not familiar with this book or the writer you are talking about, I can tell you it is very difficult to pinpoint what someone's personal opinions about a subject were after the fact. As a history major, most of our class discussions center around "knowing what you don't know." The nature of the disagreement is so subjective that all you can really do at this point is to come to your own opinion knowing in the back of your head that no one can ever "prove" it definitively.

It's interesting to see this debate weave from fact to fiction. I found the posts that discussed the disappointments of writers living up to their art interesting. It is certainly a debate in itself. It seems to me that this is not the original question. Freya was writing her life story- not a story that she created. That could then be interpreted as journalism in a way. At the same time, a biography is interpretation- interpretation of life from one person's vantage point. And the reader then interprets the writing from their perspective. Layers upon layers of subjectivity. It's all perception.

I also found your point of everyone having a dark side interesting. There is a school of thought that everyone has shadow and light. how could we know what light is without shadow? Quite often, we project our shadows onto people and then react negatively to them.

I don't know who this author was, so I can't really comment on that. I would just say that as you get older you hopefully realize that nothing in life is black and white; there are many, many shades of grey. I draw a lot of cute, happy stuff, and pretty much all of my art is infected with humour. Does that mean I'm always happy, cheerful and nice? Certainly not. Does that mean that if someone discovers my 'dark side' that they should discard my art completely because I'm a phony? I hope not. Why throw the baby out with the bathwater?

I can't think of a single artist who lived an exemplary life. Picasso created amazing work, but treated his women like shit. Charles Dickens wrote incredible tales that were entertaining, adventurous, and full of great moral lessons, but he treated his wife horribly, and basically left her for a much younger woman. He did everything in his power to keep it a secret, too. I love many of the films of Woody Allen, and I will admit that I had a very difficult time looking at any of his work for quite a while after the disgusting incident with his stepdaughter. But I have admit that I still love many of his movies. He's very talented, but obviously he is a flawed human being. As we all are.

If I were to hold every artist up to this 'standard' all the time, then I don't think there would be many artists whose work I would like! I choose to separate the artist from the work. However, I also do not put people on pedastals, either. It's a dangerous thing to idealize anyone, for in the end, you will always be disappointed.

I often like to use this quote I read from Margaret Atwood's book 'Negotiating With The Dead: A Writer On Writing' (an excellent book, by the way; I recommend it highly for anyone interested in the study of the writing process from Atwood's perspective). Anyway, the quote involves people's obsession/fascination with authors, and wanting to meet authors, because they love the book that the author has written:

"There's an epigram tacked to my office bulletin board, pinched from a magazine – "Wanting to meet an author because you like his work is like wanting to meet a duck because you like pate."

By the way, the title of the chapter where that quote came from was:
'Duplicity: The jekyll hand, the hyde hand, and the slippery double: why there are always two.'

Sorry for the long post, but it's a subject that fascinates me.

Your post reminds me of how I felt after finishing The Education of Little Tree. I was so moved by it, and as soon as I finished, I did a little research online. I wanted to know more about Forrest Carter - who he grew up to be, where he was buried. And what did I discover? That it was all a lie. The author was really Asa Carter, the same man who had ghostwritten several of George Wallace's famous racist speeches. He was also a member of the KKK. He wasn't an orphan at five or raised by Cherokee grandparents, and none of the wonderful things that happened in the book had happened in real life, despite the book being labeled as both "non-fiction" and "Native American" for twenty-some years. And as much as I wanted to then simply view it as a wonderful piece of fiction, I have never been comfortable with it. I feel decieved. This racist man making a plea on behalf of the Cherokees? And as far as I could find, it wasn't a situation where he had realized that he had made a mistake earlier in life and was trying to make amends. He never apologized for his racial slurs against African Americans and Jews. And for years, he lied to the public about who he (as an author) really was - he kept claiming that it WAS true. I was an English major, and my teachers often told us to separate the author from the work, but when the author's real life views are so contradictory from the work, and in such a negative way, I can't help but feel cheated. I want to read it again, but I am terrified to pick it up off my bookshelf. I was duped.

Hello, I am a junior in high school and I found your site through anothergirlatplay.com. I have been reading for a while, but haven't commented. I would just like to say that you are truly inspirational, Keri, in the way you have dealt with this situation respectfully and with an eager desire to understand other people's viewpoints. So often, especially with the catty nature of the internet, it is hard to have discussions such as this. You are a wonderful role model.

These are all exceptional people who you mention, Nicole. The world needs more of them for they are the ones who can affect positive change towards peace on a large scale. But most of us are just ordinary folks who go about their daily business of providing food, shelter and some happiness for themselves and their family.

I want to bring this discussion down to the smallest and, in my view, most significant denominator: personal involvement.

It goes something like this ...

"If you kill my family I will hate you. In fact, I will kill yours. And then you will kill some more of mine and I will find your friends and kill them. I will also tell my children about what you did and make sure that they hate your children." And so on and on until we lose sight of what caused this spirale of hate and violence in the first place.

Ok, I am probably simplifying this a lot but I hope you understand what I am trying to get at.

I am German and it is incomprehensable to me what my grandparents' generation did. But even here there is a flipside to the coin. My grandfather suffered terribly at the hands of the Russians during seven years of war imprisonment, leaving my grandmother to fend for herself and her four children (my father being one of them) during post war Germany. My mother never fully got over the traumas she experienced as a little girl during the last few years of the war. All of this has left scars for generations to come, including myself. Some will say, it's all deserved because what "we" did was terrible and unforgiving ... it was, but I also say: we are talking about MY family here, I have a personal involvement in this.

Having witnessed the Northern Ireland conflict I can see how difficult it is to break out of the vicious circle of personal involvement and retaliation. I mean, can most of you honestly say that you would turn the other cheek if someone murdered or injured or otherwise tortured your child, or partner, or close friend because you are a Jew, or a Catholic, or a Protestant, or whatever other label there is??

And you know what? I believe very much in tolerance and keeping an open mind, but following the attacks in London, where I currently live, even I find myself looking suspiciously at dark faces on the underground or bus, or even just walking down the street. Do I hate these terrorists? I don't know. All I know at this point is that this is very close to home and I am scared, for myself, my family and friends.

Personal involvement is powerful. Add to it ignorance, little education, closedmindedness, brainwashing and perhaps most of all lack of choice ... and you might begin to understand why lasting peace for everyone on this planet will probably never happen.

I am sorry, Keri, I am sidetracking your subject. I think it's great how you think about and question these important issues and put them out here, and I find it fascinating to read everyone's feedback, which is so diverse, interesting and thought provoking.

I am tempted to conclude with a comment my American husband made on the subject of the middle east conflict: "Give them air conditioning, they need to cool off!!"

What intrigues me is to look at people who have undergone great hardships, who suffer horribly, and throughout it all maintain a deep belief in the goodness of humanity. Look at Nelson Mandela--26 years in prison and he came out smiling, victorious, jubilant, and president of South Africa. In her diary, Anne Frank tells us she believes that humans are good while in hiding for being Jewish. Thich Nhat Hanh had been exiled 38 years from his country (only permitted to visit Vietnam for the first time this year) because he stood for peace and spoke out against the Vietnam war. Gandhi was jailed several times before achieving independence for India, then assassinated. Jesus--well, we all know what happened to him when he started preaching Love. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., same, assassinated. The Dalai Lama, in exile from Tibet for over 4 decades, has never portrayed the Chinese as evil, though they have killed and tortured millions of Tibetans. His Holiness currently favors a peaceful solution/compromise with China. Those mentioned here are the "famous" people. There are many others all over the world who work for peace through nonviolent means, including Israelis and Arabs.

To me, "anti-semitic" is just another label that is misused, overused, and perpetuates stereotyping and blaming/scapegoating. I'm not an expert, but I think that culturally and linguistically, both Arabs and Israelis are semitic people. Historically, Jews were always persecuted and had to flee to all parts of the world for their safety, hence, the term 'Diaspora'. The think the word 'semite' refers to the original Hebrews (and Palestinians/Arabs) who inhabit present-day Israel. I don't understand why in popular usage 'anti-semitic' refers only to someone whose comments are perceived as anti-Jewish when 'anti-semitic' could also mean anti-Arab.

Hatred is taught. Peace can be taught, too. We need to teach acceptance to those who have learned to hate 'the other' (whoever the other might be). One can practice non- compliance with 'evil' without resorting to violence. The desired outcome (peace, harmony) may take a long long time to manifest, but I think it is the only way to build a lasting peace.

Outside of the largest cities of North America where the Jewish population is very low or non-existent, people don't have a direct experience of relating with Jews and may carry misperceptions passed down through families, schools, churches, media, etc. In this sense, 'anti-semitism' is taught; anti-semitism does exist.

Similarly, through mainstream media exposure, Americans may misperceive most Arabs as terrorist extremists unless otherwise taught, unless we are Arabs ourselves, or we have Arab friends.

Without having read the book, and knowing Freya only from what has been cited here, I could say that I agree with her anti-exclusionist stance. I am Jewish, by the way (though I practice 'Buddhism'). I do think it was (and still is) important for Jews to have a safe place to live immediately after WWII. Who doesn't want a safe place to live? Even if you are nomadic, you want to be freely able to follow the seasons and go where you go in peace. There are Israelis and Palestinians in Israel who have come together to work for peace in various organizations. Peace is possible.

In regards to what you wrote, Keri, about discovering something negative about a person we admire (such as an author) I have a few thoughts. First, I thought of what Jesus said, "May [s]he who is without sin cast the first stone." Second, I thought, 'isn't it interesting that in Buddhism there is no idea of original sin (everyone is already enlightened, already has 'buddhanature')'. Every cause has a reaction, good or bad. Even the so-called negative things bear fruit, as garbage (compost) creates flowers and our neuroses contain hidden jewels. Third, i thought 'how common it is to be crestfallen when one we have put on a pedestal turns out to be a mere human being like ourselves, full of contradictions and paradoxes'. Buddha warned not to mistake the finger pointing to the moon as the moon. Embodying the teachings (the learning) is what's important. Plus, seeing what we abhor in another teaches us to be tolerant, have patience, and to accept our own darkness as well. That said, I do love my perfect teacher, Thich Nhat Hanh.

That was great! Thank you Candace for sharing your thoughts in such an honest and detailed way. You bring up some interesting points. I am learning through you.

My initial thoughts after reading your words,

It is really hard for me personally to really understand or comprehend what it was like to be a Jew in Europe during that time (or now for that matter), I could only get closer to it by reading extensively on the subject. I appreciate you sharing your knowledge in this area.

from the book, "If they continued to allow the Jews to flood into Palestine, the resident Arabs would be overwhelmed by refugees far better organized, funded, and equipped to struggle over possession of the land."

So it seems that Freya had the percpeption that they were in a better position to dominate the area regardless of the fact they were a minority in terms of numbers.

One thing I responded to was Freya's resolve that, "We musn't impose solutions", she advocated that nothing should be done without the Arabs consent. I believe that this is very applicable today with regards to America's foreign policy.

I find it a bit of a leap to say that because Freya appeared to be rooting for the underdog (as she saw them), and consequenty questioning the Zionist agenda that she was anti-Semetic. She did not seem to be in conflict with anything other than the fact that they could potentially displace yet another group of people (as they themselves had been displaced.)

There is the potential that there is more involved with her decisions, though I have yet to read anything inflamatory. I wonder is it possible to get into the mind of someone only having read their biography? (which is tainted greatly by the biographer's viewpoints.) I wish it were possible to go right to the source.

I just want to add that you are also very right that in Freya's specific case, maybe I am making some unfair assumptions. Its just that I have never come across someone who is anti-Zionist who if you dig deep enough you won't find some hidden masked part that really just hates Jewish people, or at the least, misjudges and misunderstands- kind of like what maybe I was doing with Freya to some degree or other.

I think your post and questions are so important and your comments very welcome. I believe that there are extremists in Israel every bit as much as in the Arab countries, but the majority of Israelis by far are not extremist. Most people don't know that 90 percent of Israelis are secular and that almost all support an independent state for Palestinians. It is tragic that the 10 percent of extremists in Israel would rather ruin things for everyone than compromise. Both sides believe fervently that God is on the their side, and only their side. I do think it is significant that, depending on what and where you read, that anywhere between 55 and 90 percent of Muslims do not believe Israel should exist period. The phrase " Push the Jews into the Red Sea" is still commonly used.

But I do believe the Arab leaders of Middle Eastern regimes know it is in their interest to keep the flames alive because they know they are largely responsible for the horrendous poverty and injustice that pervades their own countries. But their citizens are so focused on Israel as the source of all their problems that they don't look around too much elsewhere. Honestly, if there is a free and prospering Palestine, the impoverished lives of people in countries like Iraq or Egypt will not change at all.

The other reality is that Israel is the only semi-democracy in the Middle East. Under Israeli law Palestinians, including women, had rights Arabs experienced in no other country in that region. They could go to school, and they could and can be in the Israeli government. When Arabs had control of Jerusalem between 1948 and 1967, they prohibited Jews from visiting their most sacred site, the Western Wall. Israel could have done the same thing after 1967 with the Dome of the Rock, but they chose not to.
BOTH sides have a long, long way to go. Both sides need to look much harder at their own parts in whats so wrong in that region, but I also believe that in the 1940s when Britain established Israel, there were very, very few places that were open to Jews. No one wanted Jews. They were demonized worldwide, the container for more hatred than was imaginable. They'd just come from the Holocaust where 80 percent of European Jews were murdered. Many that were there before WW II were refugees of pogroms.America wouldn't give them visas. Europe didn't want them. Australia didn't want them. No one did.

When Israel was formed, the very next day they were attacked by five Arab countries. The initial people who founded Israel with the help of the Brits wanted a democracy, and not just for Jews there. But I think Israelis feel totally alone in the world, and they are far from perfect, but they also have few friends in a world where Anti-semitism is still very much alive. I would like to see two states. I don't want to see Israel become a secular state because I am afraid that, being in the minority in terms of actual population size, the Arabs will then legislate them back into a hellish, nomadic existence. We are talking about a mentality where more than seventy percent of Muslims in the Arab world support suicide attacks in Israel. No one can convince me otherwise that if there was a button that would extinguish Jews period, too many Arabs wouldn't hesitate to push it.

That said, as far as Freya goes, I just don't buy it. I get that she foresaw the problems that would occur, but she never tried to step into the hearts and minds of what made a Zionist a Zionist. I would like to learn more about her. In the case of Zionism, it is such a complex thing that I don't think you can separate it into just a philosophical or political argument for or against. Zionism was never meant to be exclusionary. It wasn't. It was, for many Jews- and I'm not including the extremists among them- simply a last resort. Period. After hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of years of being murdered, thrown out of country after country, the Inquisition, the Holocaust, the pogroms, it was a dream that any human would have to finally have a place that they could be safe, not under constant threat or surveilance or accused of horrendous crimes they didn't commit, for themselves and for future generations.
The biggest tragedy of it all to me is that of course peace is possible, even now. Both the Palestinians and Israelis could have peace, could prosper, but both sides would have to lay down the legacy of hate they have been handed and stop focusing on the past but instead finally at last build a future where they want peace more than to be right, and where they genuinely believe that change is possible. I just think that people throughout this region keep looking for it to come only from Israel rather than from themselves and their families and their own leaders.

ummm ... I've not read the book you're referencing, but I would like to say this.

Regardless of how exclusionary a religious, culture/society is or isn't, there will never be total peace amongst humans. Theoretically it is a nice idea, and it is definitely something to strive toward, but total peace doesn't seem possible. Historically (and biblically) the Israelites and Palestinians have always been at war. If you believe in the Bible then it would seem that these two nations were born to be on opposite sides of the fence. Check out the Old Testament and follow the lineage of both nations (if you care to do so).

I'm not in support of war and political unrest, and I believe there are good and innocent people who are suffering due to misconceptions. I'm just saying that even the best sounding ideas (living together peacefully) don't always turn out the way we hope. Look at America ... one big melting pot of different cultures warring amongst each other.

While I don't think peace is possible, I do believe it is something to work toward. We need to look for the good in everyone. We can learn important things from different societies, religions, cultures, etc. There is no reason to hate groups of people simply for their beliefs and their ethnicity.