Interview with Orit Arfa: Singer, Poet, Political Junky, Visionary, Freedom-Lover, All Purpose Human Being

Posted by Eitan Divinsky 09 June 2014 30 Comments

I ran into Orit Arfa, a passionate, highly motivated young lady while scanning Youtube for some new and exciting Israeli voices. There she was imitating the famous American diva Miley Cyrus and at the same time calling on Diaspora Jews to make Aliya to Israel and help settle the Jewish homeland. I contacted Orit and asked her if she would like to coordinate our efforts on a new music video. While the video remains in its planning stages, I was able to get Orit to answer some questions about her everyday life, the things she’s most passionate about, and her political opinions.

Here’s Orit’s latest Youtube hit: 125,491 views and going….

Before we start, here are links to Orit’s books:

http://www.amazon.com/Spinoza-Ayn-Rand-Orit-Arfa-ebook/dp/B00ILEEUU8

http://www.amazon.com/The-Settler-Orit-Arfa-ebook/dp/B00DO9ZTTG

Me: Tell me about yourself: Where do you live? What are some of your hobbies and interests?

Orit: I live in the Tel Aviv area, after having lived in Ariel for a year. I loved being what people called a “settler” (although Ariel is a city within the Israeli consensus). It was a very inspiring and enlightening time in my life. Recently, I received a cool opportunity to relocate to Tel Aviv for a new job, which shall remain top secret for now. (No, it’s not the Mossad).

Me: How did you get involved in Israel Advocacy? Who are some of the individuals that you’ve learned from along the way?

Orit: I wouldn’t say I’m involved in Israel advocacy because I think Israel needs a philosophical revolution to survive and thrive rather than simple arguments. I also think Israel advocacy can often place the “state” over the people of Israel. The state must give its citizens the freedom to thrive. By working so hard to strengthen the “state,” we are in danger of giving it too much power over the lives of the people. I love Ayn Rand and Spinoza, who were huge philosophical influences, and who have also enabled me to develop a pro-Israel outlook grounded in a philosophy of individual freedom. To discover their thought, read a short e-book I wrote comparing them: http://www.amazon.com/Spinoza-Ayn-Rand-Orit-Arfa-ebook/dp/B00ILEEUU8/ref=sr_1_1?s=digital-text&ie=UTF8&qid=1402081717&sr=1-1&keywords=spinoza+and+ayn+rand

Me: What brought you to the world of pop music and what do you enjoy most about it?

Orit: I think pop music is emblematic of a free society where people can express themselves how they choose and then get audiences to connect with their own thoughts and emotions through the song. I’ve loved pop since I became enamored with Madonna and Michael Jackson when I was 8 years old.

Me: What do you like about Miley Cyrus? Why her and not someone else?

Orit: I like Miley in that she really doesn’t care what people think, or at least that’s how she comes across. She made a transformation from Hanna Montana because it’s what she wanted. I like people who are not afraid to re-invent themselves and break out of society’s convention – I mean, isn’t that what Israel’s doing? Aren’t settlers doing that? I know she may not be a good influence for young girls, but I’m looking at the bigger picture of what she represents – just be who you are, and if people don’t like it, to hell with them. Besides, I like to think I sanctified her.

Me: There are those who are claiming the values of pop music and especially Miley Cyrus don’t correspond to “Jewish” values. What would you tell those people?

Orit: I’m not sure you can really say what “Jewish values” are. People interpret “Jewish” in so many different ways. And I think Judaism has veered off what it was supposed to foster – an intimate connection between an individual and his/her Creator, and that means – an intimate connection with the individual self – the created thing. To know who you are, what you love, what you’re capable of, to realize your potential. I think pop music, and music in general, can inspire us to get in touch with what’s in our heart. That’s Jewish to me. You have to read my novel, The Settler, which actually deals a lot with this question, combining music, politics, philosophy, and a great love story.

http://www.amazon.com/The-Settler-Orit-Arfa-ebook/dp/B00DO9ZTTG

Me: What would you tell those who believe Israel is guilty of occupying the Palestinians?

Orit: It’s a complicated question, and I’m not going to slide into “advocacy.” It depends on what you consider “occupy.” There is a limited “military” occupation of the Palestinian Arabs, and to some extent, Jews are under a similar system in Judea and Samaria with limits on where they can build and travel. The Palestinians generally govern themselves, which often leads to the Palestinian occupation of their own people when you consider how corrupt the PA is. I think the situation we have now–with two systems for two supposed peoples, wherein the “who” that governs is more important than the “how” they govern–is problematic, and it’s the result of the Oslo accords. It placed emphasis on” collective” rights as opposed to individual rights and ethical governance. If you’re talking about who owns the land, Jews have every right to live in Judea and Samaria, the Jewish historical heartland that Israel conquered in a war of a self-defense. But I’d like to see more state land privatized.

Me: If you could be Miley Cyrus for a day, what would you do?

Orit: Great question! I’d go to the Temple Mount. Talk about provocation.

Author’s note: to find out more about Orit, the poet, political junky, visionary, freedom lover, and all-purpose human being, visit her site: Orit Arfa (HIGHLY RECOMMENDED!)

Topics: Culture, Current Affairs, Entertainment, Politics Tags: Aliyah, Ayn Rand, Israel, Miley Cyrus, Orit Arfa, settlers, Spinoza, Zionism

About Eitan Divinsky

I'm Eitan, a prolific blogger with interests ranging from US pop culture and sports to Israeli politics. An engaging writer who channels his creative genius to cook up a colorful stew of some rather interesting, always-provocative posts.

View all posts by Eitan Divinsky →

favel konefka

Freedom is not a political position but rather a lack of a position. To have political power is to command people and to command anyone to be free is to not command at all. Free people dont need commanders as they do as they feel like.
- Eitan Divinsky
  
  There’s a difference between political opinion and political power.
  - favel konefka
    
    Political opinion precedes political power.
    - Eitan Divinsky
      
      If you mean to say that first you have an opinion and then you use it to get in power, then yes. In her case, she’s presenting an opinion–and she’s not in a position of power (yet).
      - favel konefka
        
        If she ever does she will change her mind for the simple reason that a posture based on freedom equals not having one. Its not a wrong posture. Its not a posture.
        
        I was a fan of Ayn Rand for about 1 year until i realized her libertarian ideas were unstable. Basically governments rise to fill power vacuums and as soon as any government disappears or becomes weak, others will take their place or will rise in place so freedom is impossible.
        
        Orit switches at blazing speed between the public and the private worlds as long as it suits her views. For there are criticism of the collective vs the private rights but then speaks about what “israel did” or what “the arabs did”. Collectively.
      - Eitan Divinsky
        
        Favel: Never read Ayn Rand (still have it lying on my desk as you probably know) but I don’t get your assessment re. “a posture based on freedom equals not having one. Its not a wrong posture. Its not a posture.”
        
        What does that mean? Why can’t you have the position that there need to be more basic freedoms in society?
      - favel konefka
        
        Misleading terms then, from those calling for freedom. They should instead call for less restrictions if they are serious. The debate then is about the amount of restrictions that are deemed reasonable.
        
        A simple call for freedom means total freedom and lawlessness. Of course they dont mean that, but its not up to anyone to guess which particular restrictions they want to do away with and which restrictions they want to keep. You have a thousand diverging ideas collectively referred to by the same word (freedom) just because it sounds good.
        
        Also, at some point, if society becomes free enough, it disintegrates. Societies live by rules. People without rules are not societies but people piled in the same place minutes away from a riot. The opposite of being free is being bound. Bound to a common cause, a people, or anything. Bound to a structure.
      - Orit Jean Arfa
        
        Favel, that is why I look to use the term individual rights, because it implies a political system that safeguards individual rights.
      - favel konefka
        
        But you accept and promote the concept of collective merit and collective fault, thus denying the individual.
      - Orit Jean Arfa
        
        I accept it when appropriate. Like Germany as a collective was at fault for the Holocaust and WWII. Sure there were individuals that fought against it, but ultimately the entire German enterprise sought perpetrated evil. Americans and Britons as a collective, a group, stood up against it. The early Palestinian Jews/Israelis as a collective were responsible for winning the War of Independence. What I question is the idea of “collective” rights, not collective achievement or destruction, i.e. achieved or destroyed by a group.
      - favel konefka
        
        Flip flopping on principles is not a principle.
      - Orit Jean Arfa
        
        I’ve given a rational argument. Explain how I flip-flopped on principles. Otherwise, your statement is just a smear.
      - favel konefka
        
        You claim to stand for freedom and individual rights. Just not always. So you bring examples were entire peoples are to be lauded or blamed while ascribing to libertarian, individualist philosophies. That is 100% inconsistent.
      - Orit Jean Arfa
        
        You have not explained how I flip-flopped. Standing for individual rights (It was Eitan who used the word “freedom”) does not contract collective achievement or blame when appropriate. and as I have demonstrated. I wager you are either misinterpreting my words or not understanding them due to an apparent bias you have against Libertarianism. That said, I never claimed to ascribe to a libertarian philosophy. I recommend you be more precise in your further analysis; otherwise, it is an attempt at a smear and, frankly, I don’t have time to engage.
      - favel konefka
        
        I explained this above. You accept collective achievement and collective rights and as an example gave the victory in the 6 day war and the rule afterwards. It is collective.
        
        But later frowned upon the very idea of collective achievement, which you used to support a previous point.
        
        Thus principles are turned on and off at will whenever convenient, rather than sticking to them.
      - favel konefka
        
        Didnt you say you admire ayn rand? That admiration, if real, defines you as a libertarian?
        
        Individual rights? Thats libertarianism.
        
        And i am not biased against them. I think they are powerless and will never amount to nothing due to their rejection of violence.
      - Orit Jean Arfa
        
        Your post reveals much too much ignorance, arrogance, and a desire to put me down for this to lead anywhere productive.
        
        I don’t even really know what Libertarianism is. Ayn Rand was not a Libertarian, and have you read any Spinoza?
        
        I wish you much luck, Favel, and much more logic.
      - favel konefka
        
        Ayn rand was not a libertarian? Right?
        
        She was a minarquist. Splitting hairs now? Want to argue the finer differences between libertarians and minarquists?
        
        I havent read anything by spinoza. Have read A LOT from ayn rand though. All i know about spinoza is that he was shunned by jews and rejected everywhere till he because famous. Then he suddenly become “one of us” and is to be exhibited around as evidence of the collective jewish genius.
      - favel konefka
        
        You wrote a book on ayn rand and dont even know what libertarianism means?
        
        Libertarians believe in absolute freedom. Another word for anarchists. Minarquists like ayn rand were a bit above that and said that states should at least provide for courts and police forces. They support a minimalist state, without going as far as asking for their disappearance.
        
        You will find minimalists states in Somalia, Lebanon and northern mexico.
      - NCBrian
        
        Jesus, what a load of nonsense. I can’t believe how patient you have been with this guy.
        
        I admire Gandhi but i’m not a pacifist…
        I admire Mozart, does that make me a musician?
      - favel konefka
        
        By your own writings achievements grant rights. You said that israel conquered the land in defense thus it gained a right over it. Collectively.
        
        Achievement–>>Rights. Collective achievements for collective rights.
        
        But now you say that you question the very idea of collective rights. Even though it is the basis for israeli rule, granted through a collective achievement (victory in self defense).
        
        Which way is it?
      - Orit Jean Arfa
        
        Please explain where I wrote: “achievements grant rights.” I ask you to be precise if you want to put words into my mouth; otherwise, you’re projecting your biases on me, and it is a smear tactic.
        
        Israel conquered the land because its citizens banded together to fight racism against them in acts of self-defense. The sum is a collective achievement for Israelis because they were the ones fighting the war. How do you get from there to the statement that “achievements grant rights.” And what kind of rights?
        
        Please be precise.
        
        It is not EITHER/OR. A political philosophy based on individual rights does not contradict the idea of an achievement achieved by a group of people, or an act of war perpetrated by a group of people, often expressed in an elected government. For example, the Americans achieved victory over Britain, and then installed a government that respects individual rights. The blacks achieved freedom as a collective during the Civil Rights movement. That doesn’t mean blacks can now hurt each other or whites.
      - favel konefka
        
        “If you’re talking about who owns the land, Jews have every right to
        live in Judea and Samaria, the Jewish historical heartland that Israel
        conquered in a war of a self-defense.”
        
        I claim that it is a contradiction to stand for both sorts of rights because they contradict each other.
        
        I will give you one example: Property rights during privatization.
        
        Back in the day across latin america there was a wave of privatization. I know of at least one bank was “privatized” by selling it at low prices. It caused a loss of capital to the state. The state recovered the costs through taxation, but citizens did not see the benefits. The entire operation was essentially a transfer of taxes from private citizens to another private citizen (an investor) through the intermediation of the government.
        
        It looked like honest business until you pay attention to the numbers and realized it was pure theft. You dont sell a 5 billion bank for 2 billion and claim to be making money at it. No private business would do so, but states dont care as they can recover through taxation. So the people pay while a connected fat cat gets 3 billion in profit out of the blue.
        
        That cat, btw, was recently here in israel with us..
        
        In the US the government sells and buys land all the time. The lands are often given at low prices to friends and paid with government loans at 0%. Then sold later in the private sphere at higher prices. The entire scheme serves only to transfer wealth under the appearances of legality. Quite often the buyer is the state itself and it funds itself through taxes. Land changes hands cyclically while money flows in the same direction!
        
        So everyones property rights are violated through taxation in order to… not to load the state with property? Is that your logic?
      - Orit Jean Arfa
        
        Can you give me an example, Favel, of where I go back and forth? A collective can band together to guard themselves from racists, and then think more collectively in the name of self-defense. The point is that governments shouldn’t rise to fill vacuums but to ensure individual rights, ideally.
      - favel konefka
        
        Sure. Heres is an excerpt from the last paragraph: “It placed emphasis on” collective” rights as opposed to individual rights and ethical governance. If you’re talking about who owns the land, Jews have every right to
        live in Judea and Samaria, the Jewish historical heartland that Israel
        conquered in a war of a self-defense”
        
        First against the collective, later for the collective. Thats is the example.
        
        As for the second point, governments do not rise based on ideals. They fill power vacuums like gangs rule neighborhoods if the police refuses to show up. It does not mean they are “bad”, but thats how the mechanics of it work out.
        
        Also, ideals are at best targets, not policies. The destination is not the road. To aspire for a world of freedom is not the same as to create it. You might as well call for happiness as a policy. But how would it ever be implemented? It may simply be impossible.
      - Orit Jean Arfa
        
        As to the first point, Israel was targeted by racists, and the Israeli people banded together to defend themselves. As a consequence, Israel as a country captured territory. As the victor, Israel is the new rightful steward of the land. It could then allow its citizens to settle there; the majority of its citizens are Jewish. However, if you read further, you would see that they should have opened it up to private ownership to release the collective claim. No contradiction.
        
        As for the second point, you’re making sweeping generalizations ruled by determinism. I would wager the early American government was built on a sound political philosophy that guarded individual rights. Of course governments can be easily corrupted, but that doesn’t mean the people shouldn’t work to keep a government from behaving morally.
        
        As I said below, I agree to an extent that a government cannot call for freedom or happiness. That is why in America they called it the “pursuit of happiness,” which a government can protect by protecting individual rights. People are “free” to make a wreck of their lives or live the best lives they could. I’m not sure what alternative you are proposing. Gang rule because that’s how people are?
      - favel konefka
        
        Release collective claim? What that does even mean?
        
        I never said governments were bad or immoral. I said they rise to fill power vacuums. That statement deals with their origin not their behavior. Government is a gang, the biggest gang. It does not mean anything more than that. It taxes, it provides security, it keeps territory. The thing is that the word gang carries an emotional load but be assured i look at this from a neutral point of view.
      - Orit Jean Arfa
        
        Release collective claim meaning the land shouldn’t be “state owned” land. It should be privatized. The way the US encouraged individual settlement with the Homestead Act. I’m not sure what you mean by governments rising to fill power vacuums.
      - favel konefka
        
        First, why should it not be state owned?
        
        Should it be sold? To whom? For how much money?
        
        As for the vacuum power, it means that whenever a territory has no government or a weak government a strong one will displace it and become the new government. Thus a lack of government is not possible.
        
        Dont believe me? Look at Mexico. Mexico has regions where the central government does not exist and are ruled by cartels. The cartels have weaponry that rivals that of the mexican army. One day they might as well write anthems and design flags..
        
        Hezbollah is stronger than the lebanese state.
        
        These are all gangs and they are on their way to government.
      - favel konefka
        
        Im not proposing any alternative. The power does what the power wants. If you ever get power you too will do whatever you want with it, based on your own ideas. I am not going to teach anyone how to rule their fiefdoms.

S	M	T	W	T	F	S
« Feb
				1	2	3
4	5	6	7	8	9	10
11	12	13	14	15	16	17
18	19	20	21	22	23	24
25	26	27	28	29	30

Interview with Orit Arfa: Singer, Poet, Political Junky, Visionary, Freedom-Lover, All Purpose Human Being

Related Posts

Black Lives Matter and BDS: Exploited and Blind

Time for Israel to Openly Support the Kurds, Distance Itself from Turkey

Why they hate us: Anti-Semitism Explained

About Eitan Divinsky