The Zionist Conspiracy |
|
|
A clandestine undertaking on behalf of Israel, the Jets and the Jews. 
|
Thursday, July 29, 2004
New York Federation and Day Schools "Funds taken away from struggling Jewish schools are to be redirected to 'pilot programs' - itself a cliche for those who are clueless about Jewish education - that will subsidize mentoring and training projects. We can score one more for the already well-endowed Jewish education industry. We are awash in expensive training programs that lead nowhere, that do nothing for schools or educators and that are bereft of any standards to assess their effectiveness." From Bad To Even Worse Thanks to the latest outrage by Bruce (The Rat) Ratner, even the pathetic Clippers can now mock the New Jersey Nets. Beilin's Candor Yesterday, Yossi Beilin participated in a Q&A session on Haaretz. Beilin's arrogance particularly comes through in the following exchange: How much financial help have you received from the EU, or other European sources, over the past two years? Dr. Jack Chivo West Vancouver, Canada Yossi Beilin: I forgot to bring my budget papers with me. In fact, a website about the Economic Cooperation Foundation states that the ECF is funded by the EU and that "Dr. Beilin receives an annual salary of between $80,000 and $90,000 from the ECF." The ECF and other EU affiliates also pay for Beilin's travel expenses and for activities supporting the Geneva Accord. The Forward had a detailed piece about the ECF is 2002. Zionism in Israel In 2002, Mecca Cola was introduced by Tawfiq Mathlouthi as an alternative to Coke. Mathlouthi said his product was part of the "war against the Americans and Zionism". Strangely, Mecca Cola is now being marketed in Israel, presumably for Arab residents of Israel. Hopefully Jewish residents of Israel will continue to purchase Coke, Pepsi and RC, the three leadings brands there. Mecca Cola's introduction to Israel makes one even more thankful for the North American immigrants who arrived this month via Nefesh B'Nefesh, and the 200 new olim from France who arrived this week. Wednesday, July 28, 2004
Roshei Yeshiva and Torah Education "I am mindful of the example of the Great Roshe Yeshiva of Lakewood, that Torah giant who for all of the extraordinary burdens that confronted him worked tirelessly for basic Torah chinuch in Israel and North America. In a state of constant exhaustion, he raised funds for these institutions and was their leading advocate. "Has anyone seen even once during the past ten years a kol koreh from Roshei Yeshiva and Torah leaders proclaiming that it is a sacred obligation to support basic Torah chinuch? Just once? Their names are plastered everywhere, prohibiting this and advocating that, but when it comes to basic Torah education they are silent." Monday, July 26, 2004
The Anti-Withdrawal Protest Yesterday, a large number of Israelis opposed to withdrawal from Gaza formed a human chain from Gaza to Jerusalem. Today's Haaretz reports that "police put the number of participants in the 'Israeli chain' at around 130,000, while organizers of the event estimated there were some 200,000 participants." In contrast, today's New York Times reports: "The size of the demonstration - organizers estimated that 200,000 Israelis took part, though the police put the number at 70,000 - represented perhaps the gravest challenge yet to Mr. Sharon's disengagement plan under which Israel would withdraw from the 26-mile-long Gaza Strip and four northern settlements in the West Bank." Today's Maariv supports the 130,000 figure. Perhaps the Times' figure was based on a police estimate early in the rally. Otherwise, it's hard to understand how their number was off by 60,000 people. Friday, July 23, 2004
Blame Israel This morning, Fatah terrorists in Gaza killed a 15 year old Palestinian. Apparently the teen and his family members had asked the terrorists to stop using their home as a launching site for rockets fired at Israelis. The New York Times has a decent piece about the matter, until the end of the article, when it states: The latest death, according to Agence France Press, brings to 4,189 the number of people killed since the start of the intifada in September 2000. The toll includes 3,192 Palestinians and 926 Israelis. Anyone who looks at the death toll will assume that more than three times the number of Palestinians have been killed by Israel than Israelis killed by Palestinians. Putting aside that most of the Palestinian dead are terrorists such as those who killed the Arab teen this morning, the reality is that a significant number of Palestinians have either been killed by other Palestinians, or have killed themselves (and usually innocent Israelis) in suicide bombings. Bruce Ratner on Yahoo I'm pleased to discover that a search for "Bruce Ratner" on Yahoo results in Bruce Ratner Sucks emerging as the sixth result. Google searches require more patience. Wednesday, July 21, 2004
Don't Take the Hague Lightly In a column in this week's Jewish Press, Isaac Kohn writes: The International Court of Justice has stated that, in its considered opinion, Israel`s anti-terrorism fence is a violation of international law and must be torn down, and that Israel must compensate Arab residents for the damage done. I actually applauded the ludicrous ruling. I applauded loudly — not for the “justice” of the decision, but because had these august judges decided otherwise, my assumption about their predetermined, anti-Semitic stance would have been wrong. I applauded the news that my assumption turned out to be right. Bravo! On a gut level, that reaction makes sense, but the Hague ruling - and the support of it in the UN by every nation in the EU - cannot be taken lightly. As a result of the decision and the EU's support for it, one can argue that only the United States (to its credit as a moral nation) stands between Israel being completely isolated as a pariah state. This isn't really something new, and there might not be much that can be done about this, but one thing needs to be done to ensure the situation does not get worse: Jewish groups - inside and outside the Jewish establishment - must take pro-Israel advocacy on college campuses much more seriously and make it a priority. Otherwise, when current college students begin to assume positions of political leadership, Israel may no longer have the support of the United States. Jewish Press Column Below is my column in this week's Jewish Press. First, a brief comment: I try to take an analytical approach in my columns for the Jewish Press, mainly because I don't think there is enough serious analysis of Israel's problems in the American Jewish media. I've been asked why I don't write about what the Israeli residents of Gaza are going through. While I think I have expressed sympathy for residents of Gaza (and those of Judea and Samaria) and criticized Sharon's approach toward them in past columns, at least in the Jewish Press, I generally leave it to others to look at the personal toll of dismantling settlements. That should not be taken to suggest that I am indifferent either to the Jewish residents of Gaza, or to the IDF soldiers in the area. I visited several Gush Katif communities last October and certainly wish the residents well. Respect Dissent, Reject Invective Toward Sharon By Joseph Schick A frequently heard argument in opposition to a withdrawal from Gaza goes as follows: "People ask how 8,000 Jews can live in Gaza, surrounded by over a million Arabs who want to kill them. Well, in that case, how can 5 million Jews live in the Middle East, surrounded by hundreds of millions of Muslims who want to kill them?" This argument fails for at least two reasons. First, Israel is at least tacitly recognized as a legitimate state by the developed world. It is not treated like one, but there is official recognition. In contrast, rightly or wrongly, nobody recognizes the legitimacy of Israeli settlement in Gaza. Second, Israel`s plight of being surrounded by hundreds of millions of Arabs makes it difficult to envision retaining part of Gaza in its permanent borders. Israel`s best approach is to retain as much territory as possible with as few Arabs as possible within that territory. That strategy would not be compromised by settlement in, and annexation of, certain parts of Judea and Samaria, which has lots of empty space and room for development. Gaza, however, is among the most crowded areas in the world, and the very high birthrate among Arabs there is making Israel`s demographic situation more precarious. Israel could annex Gush Katif and the settlements in northern Gaza while ceding the rest of Gaza (as National Religious Party leader Effie Eitam advocates), but under that scenario, the Gush Katif communities would continue to be surrounded by Khan Yunis and other Palestinian towns and villages. Still, while I have doubts about the long-term viability of the Gaza settlements and expect Prime Minister Sharon`s unilateral withdrawal plan to eventually go forward, I oppose the plan because Sharon broke his promise to respect the results of the Likud referendum; because his firing of cabinet ministers who disagree with him was undemocratic; and, most importantly, because contrary to his assurances when he introduced the plan, he has done little to strengthen Jerusalem or parts of Judea and Samaria that Israel wants to permanently retain. As a result, Palestinians will likely see the withdrawal as a sign that their campaign of terror is succeeding and that Israel is on the run. The media have created a perception that there is overwhelming Israeli support for the unilateral dismantling of settlements and have marginalized critics as extremist rejectionists, but a new Geocartography poll paints a different picture. The survey shows that 49 percent of Israelis support unilateral withdrawal, with 44 percent opposed. That hasn`t stopped some of Sharon`s supporters and left-wing politicians, along with several leading members of Israel`s media, from challenging the right of the plan`s opponents to criticize unilateral withdrawal, invoking the Rabin assassination for the notion that dissent must be stifled. It is absolutely legitimate to offer a rationale for why the political decisions of Sharon and others may be very wrong, even immoral. Those who challenge the right of the plan`s opponents to criticize Sharon fail to understand or respect the norms of a democratic society. The notion that strong criticism of Sharon and his plan are automatically an incitement to political violence is absurd. Indeed, a poll by Haifa University`s National Security Studies Center (hardly a hotbed of right-wing activity) asked whether violence could ever be justified as a last resort to prevent the government from implementing an objectionable policy. Of Jewish residents in Judea, Samaria and Gaza, only 2.2 percent responded that any such situation could arise. Clearly, one can adamantly oppose both Sharon`s plan and the idea that violence can be a tool to prevent the plan`s implementation. Of course, there are a small number of extremists spewing diatribes against Sharon and other Israeli leaders, and insinuating that they are traitors or subject to din rodef. Some observant Jews in America also take extremist positions and castigate anyone more moderate than Kach as leftist lovers of Arab terrorists. There already is one murdered Israeli prime minister; decency demands that invective toward Israel`s leaders — especially someone who has contributed as much to the Jewish state as Ariel Sharon — be rejected and condemned with complete revulsion. The reality is that Israel has no peace partner, faces demographic problems, and is diplomatically isolated. There are no simple solutions. Those who express an opinion have a duty to carefully and soberly consider both sides, explain their reasoning respectfully, and not denigrate people who have devoted their lives to the security of the Israeli people. Tuesday, July 20, 2004
Orthodoxy and Pluralism Luke Ford's interview of JJ Goldberg is Ford's most comprehensive one yet on the subject of Jewish journalism. Goldberg's candor was refreshing. In the near future, I will likely post in detail about Jewish journalism, Jewish blogging, the Goldberg interview, and the memoranda to and from The Jewish Week that Ford posted on Protocols. One small point in the interview was Goldberg's criticism of Reform Jewish leaders who insist on Orthodox recognition and acceptance of Reform's legitimacy. Goldberg - who is Conservative - said: I think Orthodox Jew would do well to understand what it does to other people when you don't want to socialize with them. I think they assume that because they're doing what God told them to do, everybody else needs to understand it. A lot of Reform Jews think they believe in pluralism, that everybody is entitled to their own form of Judaism. Now, Orthodox Judaism teaches that halachah is Judaism. Reform Judaism doesn't believe that the Torah commands anything. It recommends. By definition, an Orthodox Jew cannot believe that Reform Judaism is an authentic interpretation of the Torah. If you are really a pluralist, you have to believe in the right of Orthodoxy not to accept Reform Judaism. The Reform are always pressing in communal situations and organizations for resolutions [calling on Israel to accept the legitimacy of Reform Judaism]. There have been a couple of national Jewish councils that have fallen apart, the Orthodox resigned, because the Reform managed to get a majority to adopt a resolution calling on the Israeli government to accept the legitimacy of Reform Judaism. If they had sat down and thought it through, they would see that the Orthodox can't live with that. If you don't want the council to exist, fine. But if you want there to be a council where everybody sits around the table, don't shoot a hole in the floor of the boat. [Any typos above are Luke's, not mine.] A few years ago, a friend of mine enrolled at Hebrew Union College, the rabbinical school of the Reform movement. She e-mailed me mentioning that HUC was holding a workshop about Jewish pluralism, and invited me to come and offer an Orthodox perspective. I declined, explaining that while I believed in pluralism within the secular democratic society of the United States, I could not accept the notion that a movement that rejects the commandments of the Torah could have legitimacy within Judaism. I tried to explain that as a pluralist, she should respect my rejection of Reform Judaism. I don't think she did. Haredi-Lite In the latest issue of The Jerusalem Report, Sara K. Eisen, reviewing a book, writes that: "At age 22, [a main character] Tzippy, a good Brooklyn Beis Ya'akov girl, is already considered, in her haredi-lite circle (a group more worldly than the ultra-Orthodox and less liberal than the modern Orthodox, where men will attend sporting events, and women wear makeup, but neither will receive a liberal arts education), to be well on her way to old maidhood." The idea that a 22 year old woman would already be considered an "old maid" in observant circles is itself highly doubtful, but Eisen's apparently self-invented term of "haredi-lite", along with her self-definition of the term, is an example of the ignorance toward Orthodox Jews among much of the media, including the Jewish media. The ignorance is especially pervasive among Israelis. It's not clear what "ultra-Orthodox" means and how those who are "haredi-lite" are more worldly than them. But given that plenty of charedim in America attend college and graduate school, the idea that neither men nor women who are "haredi-lite" would "receive a liberal arts education" is nonsense. One can go to various schools and find charedi (and, presumably, "haredi-lite") students who are receiving such an education. The situation is different in Israel, where charedim are more likely to be cut off from much of secular society, though even there some charedi woman attend programs at Bar Ilan University and elsewhere. In any event, Eisen's assumptions that American charedim are identical to their Israeli counterparts are inaccurate and misleading. A Rat Lover Over at Bruce Ratner Sucks, I fisk an idiotic column in today's Times by Harvey (More Rat Please) Araton. Friday, July 16, 2004
Ratner and Race All of us remember the picture of three New York City firemen raising the American flag at Ground Zero on September 11. That photograph was to be memorialized by a statue. Then, Bruce Ratner, who commissioned the statue, insisted that the statue had to include one white fireman, one Hispanic fireman, and one African-American fireman, even though the three firemen who actually raised the flag were all white. Despite this, the Rat has no misgivings about shipping away a very good African-American player, leaving the Nets with only Nenad Krstic and Brian Scalabrine as potential replacements on the projected roster, even though Kristic and Scalabrine are both white stiffs. All in the Family It turns out that Bruce Ratner is not the only evil member of his family. Ellen Ratner, the Jewish, anti-Israel political commentator, is the Rat's sister. Here's a recent example of Ellen Ratner's feelings about Israel: "It's not too late to engage in a fair and equitably mediated settlement in the Middle East. This past weekend, however, Israel killed another loved leader of Hamas." The "loved leader of Hamas" referred to by Ms. Rat? That was Abdul Aziz Rantisi, the terrorist group's leader. Want to know why Rantisi was "loved?" Here are just two examples, in his own words: "By God, we will not leave one Jew in Palestine. We will fight them with all the strength we have. This is our land, not the Jews." (June 10, 2003) On the borders of "Palestine": "There is no difference between Akko, Haifa, Gaza, Jaffa or Nablus. The Palestinian Intifada will continue until the last Zionist is banished." Hope Ellen (Ms. Rat) Ratner is recovering from the loss of her beloved murderer. A Fellow Alum I am ashamed to discover that Bruce (The Rat) Ratner is a fellow alum of Columbia University Law School. I call upon Columbia Law's new dean, David M. Schizer, to immediately end any ties between the school and Bruce Ratner. Perhaps his J.D. degree can be revoked. Thursday, July 15, 2004
Bruce Ratner Contact Info If you'd like to contact Bruce Ratner and let him know how you feel about his destruction of the New Jersey Nets, here's his contact information: Telephone: 718-923-8401 E-mail: bratner@fcrc.com The Rat Guts the Nets A few weeks ago, Bruce (The Rat) Ratner insisted: "Cost-cutting is absolutely not my intention," Ratner said from his 11th-floor office. "My intention is to make the team competitive now. Obviously, one of the difficulties that we inherited, (were) contracts which are extensive. But we understood that when we bought the team. "What we want to do as owners is do everything we can to keep Kenyon Martin." Tonight, the Nets are trading Martin to the Denver Nuggets for three draft picks. This comes weeks after they sold this year's first round draft pick for $3 million in cash. For the few of us who are Nets fans, two things must be done. First, call the Nets at 201-935-8888 to express your outrage. I just left a detailed message on the voicemail of General Manager Ed Stefanski. (I tried, but Nets CEO Rod Thorn apparently does not allow fans to access his phone line.) Second, it is essential that we go to no more Nets home games as long as The Rat owns the team. That includes the Meadowlands and the proposed new arena in Brooklyn. If necessary, it is okay to go to Nets road games, including at Madision Square Garden. (Crossposted at my new blog devoted to Bruce Ratner, Bruce Ratner Sucks.) Wednesday, July 14, 2004
Jewish Press This week's Jewish Press features a front/back page piece by Robert J. Avrech about his late son, Ariel Avrech, who tragically passed away last year at the age of 22 from pulmonary fibrosis, an incurable lung disease. Robert Avrech, who lives with his family in the Pico-Robertson section of Los Angeles, is a screenwriter who won an Emmy for "The Devil’s Arithmetic." He also wrote "A Stranger Among Us" which, of course, is familiar to many observant Jews. Ariel Avrech was a student at Ner Yisroel, a leading yeshiva in Baltimore. Robert Avrech's piece comes from postings on his blog, which he maintains as a tribute to Ariel's life of righteousness and in honor of Ariel's memory. Many of us who are familiar with the Jewish blogosphere have come across Robert Avrech's blog. It is safe to say, however, that very few readers of the Jewish Press have until now. For all the criticism of the Jewish Press - and some of this criticism has appeared on this blog - a great deal of credit is due to the paper's senior editor, Jason Maoz, for continually searching for ways to enhance the product offered to his readers. The Avrech piece was published at Maoz's initiative and after considerable effort on his part. Maoz has given a forum to a number of talented people who his readers had previously never heard of. In December, he prominently featured Steven I. Weiss' fine piece about an Israel Policy Forum event in support of the Geneva Accord at which Tom Friedman assaulted a critic. Many of us had already read the piece in Jewsweek and about it in Protocols. For the vast majority of Jewish Press readers, however, the piece - and Steven I. Weiss - were brand new. Maoz has also given a platform for Chananya Weissman of End The Madness to attack the dysfuctional, dogmatic and outdated shidduch dating system. One wonders when The Jewish Week will allow a person in his or her 20's without establishment connections to rail against the Jewish establishment's dysfuctional, dogmatic and outdated federation system. Maoz has also listed Jewish blogs of interest and frequently quoted scoops and interesting observations from bloggers in his weekly Media Monitor column. In contrast to the Jewish Week, whose op-ed page appears to be limited to "leaders" of "Jewish organizations", Maoz has opened his op-ed page to a number of bloggers whose ideas he finds interesting. The Jewish Press is not and should not be immune from criticism, but its improvements are evident and should be recognized and applauded. From Tehran to New York In a column in today's Tehran Times, Hassan Hanizadeh writes about the World Court ruling on what he calls "the apartheid wall." Hanizadeh's column is filled with inaccurate statements of fact, including: 1. The court ruling was based on UN Resolution 242, according to which the West Bank is considered part of occupied Palestinian territory. That is false. 242 says nothing of the sort. 2. Resolution 242 states that Israel must unconditionally withdraw from the territories it occupied in 1967 and forbids border changes. False again. Indeed, under 242 Israel is to withdraw from some of the territories captured in the Six Day War only when it is fully recognized in secure borders. 3. According to the Oslo Accords, which the Palestinian Liberation Organization under the leadership of Yasser Arafat and the Zionist regime signed in 1993, a Palestinian government should be established in the lands occupied in 1967. Oslo never called for a withdrawal from all of Judea, Samaria and Gaza. Oslo I, signed in 1993, established the Palestinian Authority and called for it to take control over Jericho and most of Gaza. Oslo II, signed in 1995, called for Israeli withdrawal from the large cities in Judea and Samaria, and several other withdrawals, with final borders to be negotiated. If you're still reading, a fair question would be why I'm focusing on a Tehran Times column. After all, that's not exactly anyone's idea of an objective paper. The answer is that each of the three false myths quoted above has found its way into much of the mainstream European and North American media. The idea that Israel is required to unilaterally withdraw under UN Resolution 242 and Oslo is generally unchallenged and has become pervasive. Tuesday, July 13, 2004
Times on the Fence In an editorial in Sunday's New York Times, the paper stated that there were "similarities between the international [Hague] and Israeli rulings. In his opinion, Aharon Barak, the Israeli chief justice, agreed that Israel holds the West Bank 'in belligerent occupation' and is therefore subject to international law." Paragraph 1 of the Israeli Supreme Court decision did indeed state that "since 1967, Israel has been holding the areas of Judea and Samaria in belligerent occupation." Perhaps the Times stopped reading after the first paragraph. The decision continues that: Israel's fight is complex. Together with other means, the Palestinians use guided human bombs. These suicide bombers reach every place that Israelis can be found (within the boundaries of the State of Israel and in the Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria and the Gaza Strip). They sew destruction and spill blood in the cities and towns. The forces fighting against Israel are terrorists: they are not members of a regular army; they do not wear uniforms; they hide among the civilian Palestinian population in the territories, including inside holy sites; they are supported by part of the civilian population, and by their families and relatives... Our point of departure is the assumption, which petitioners did not manage to negate, that the government decision to construct the Separation Fence is motivated by security, and not political, considerations." Monday, July 12, 2004
Polls on Disengagement, Political Violence Two new polls challenge media perceptions about Sharon's unilateral withdrawal plan and "settlers'" respect for democracy. According to one poll, by Geocartogrphy, 49 percent of Israelis support unilateral withdrawal, with 44 percent opposed. That's in sharp contrast to the notion that an overwhelming majority of Israelis support unilateral dismantling of settlements. The other poll, by University of Haifa's National Security Studies Center, asked whether violence could ever be justified as a last resort to prevent the government from implementing an objectionable policy. Only 2.2 percent of residents in Judea, Samaria and Gaza believed any such situation could arise. Haifa University is far from sympathetic to Jewish residents in the territories, and its poll clearly refutes the notion that those residents do not respect democratic norms and/or condone political violence. Wednesday, July 07, 2004
Bruce Ratner's Damage Control A few days ago, prospective new Nets owner Bruce Ratner met with a few of the team's beat reporters, in a desperate attempt of damage control following reports that he will drastically slash the payroll and plans to dismantle the team. Ratner claimed that he will try to retain Kenyon Martin, but refused to guarantee that he would match a contract offer for the maximum salary. Even if the Nets do bring Martin back, and keep him, Jason Kidd and Richard Jefferson, I'm not mollified. The Nets have been desperately looking to trade Kerry Kittles and plan to buy out the contract of Lucious Harris. That would leave them with no shooting guards. They will not use their $5 million cap exemption to bring in a solid veteran or a good backup point guard to allow Kidd to occasionally rest. They have already sold (yes, sold) their first round pick. Under the best circumstances, they will not improve their bench, despite their lack of depth when compared with teams such as Detroit and Indiana. At best, the Nets will be a pretty good team, but not a team committed to winning a championship. When Ratner offered $300 million to buy the team, he knew that it was losing money, that attendance was sparse, that salaries were high. He bought them anyway, not because he cares about basketball (if anything, the weekend interviews further demonstrate his lack of knowledge or interest in franchise sports - he expressed shock that the players were upset after losing Game 7 to the Pistons), but as a way to gain approval for his Brooklyn real estate project. Catholics and Israel In response to my post last week about Commonweal, a reader e-mailed me about the negative attitudes about Israel expressed by that magazine, and, in his view, Catholics generally. His comment and my response appear in the comments to that post, but I think it's worthwhile to post them in a separate entry here, especially since that post was only tangentially about Israel. Tzvi wrote: Don't give them a free pass on Israel. Why the hell should we put up with this defamation? If Catholics want to be anti-Israel, we can respond by helping those who want to embarrass them on domestic issues that they care about. There are exceptions such as Bill Bennett who spoke very well at the rally in Washington, but overall they are not friendly to our interests. I responded: I'm not sure what you mean by "helping those who want to embarrass them on domestic issues that they care about" and don't see how that would be an effective approach. If you're criticizing me for writing something positive about a magazine that doesn't like Israel on a blog mainly devoted to Israel's treatment by the media, your point is fair enough, even if it's also provincial. The truth is that I stumbled across it, was very impressed, and later came across its sentiments about Israel. Believe me, however, I am troubled by the apparent hostility of many Catholics to Israel. It may be because Bethlehem is in Judea (i.e. the West Bank), because most Catholics in Israel and the territories identify as Arab, or because the Vatican didn't recognize or establish diplomatic relations with Israel until after everyone else did (after Oslo, I think). My sense, though, is that most of this comes from somewhere else. Perhaps Catholics have a subconscious need to retain some aspect of anti-Semitism, and Israel is a convenient punching bag. Maybe their religious and lay leadership therefore expresses negative things about Israel in Catholic school, in churches, etc. I've read that the re-establishment of the Jewish State is theologically troubling to Catholics, who historically saw the destruction of the Second Temple in 70 CE and the exile of Jews from their land as punishment for Jesus' death. Still, it seems that liberal Catholics, people who reject the Vatican's views on things like birth control, abortion rights, etc., are at least as likely to be anti-Israel (you point out Bill Bennett, who obviously is very conservative - except with regard to gambling). Maybe there's a rational explanation that makes sense, or maybe it's futile to look for one. The United Nations This morning, one visitor found this site via a Google search for "Zionist Conspiracy." The visitor's IP address was identified as 157.150.194.10 at un.org. It's nice to know that the UN believes that there is a Zionist Conspiracy. Thursday, July 01, 2004
The Newest Blogger My father has long freely expressed his iconoclastic views, often eliciting strong responses - sometimes lavish praise, other times ad hominem attacks. In the last couple of months, some of these responses have been appearing online. After an April piece in praise of Prime Minister Sharon's plan to withdraw from Gaza, one blogger respectfully responded: Who the hell is Marvin Schick? Come to think, what the hell is the Jewish Week? Let me explain: Mr. Schick is a rich dude, and thus, under Jewish community rules, is allowed to mouth off about stuff. Alas, the Jewish Week, that fine piece of newspaper (well, it would be if there was no writing on it), only ran his column every other week, and maybe dumped him. So Schick now buys a half-page in that paper every week, and airs anything that pops into his head. Needless to say, he thinks he's God's gift to the world and is the greatest authority on everything. Also recently, my father wrote an article about the Satmar chasidic sect. Menachem Butler took issue with one statement in that column, and wrote on his blog: Dr. Schick's wonderfully written article, about a sect of American Orthodoxy often only discussed in a negative manner, is quite informative in describing some of the issues surrounding the Satmar hassidic sect. However, perhaps Dr. Schick is incorrect in his statement that "there hasn't been much [scholarly work] since the passing in 1979 of Rabbi Joel Teitelbaum." For a very recent article about R. Joel Teitelbaum, see the most recent issue of Modern Judaism (May 2004) where Zvi Jonathan Kaplan wrote, "Rabbi Joel Teitelbaum, Zionism, and Hungarian Ultra-Orthodoxy." Finally, last week on Protocols, Luke Ford provided the full text of my father's June piece about Chabad. There were a few positive comments, followed by another comment from "Reb Yudel" - also known as Larry Yudelson, who wrote: I was just telling a friend that it's time that Marvin Schick start posting his stuff online. He wouldn't happen to have a computer-literate son, would he...? That comment, along with his birthday which falls out this shabbos, led me to start posting my father's articles online, and this post is the official launch of his new website. Currently, approximately 130 of his writings have been posted; another 75 or so will be posted in the next week. New articles appearing in the Jewish Week and elsewhere will be posted as they are published. In the long term, we may even look for a way to post some of his columns from the '60's and '70's. | "
