A clandestine undertaking on behalf of Israel, the Jets and the Jews.

 
Commonweal

There are exceptions, of course, but so many publications - Jewish and otherwise - are filled with gossip or monolithic agendas that it's refreshing to come across a publication by people of faith that takes ideas (but not necessarily itself) seriously.

Commonweal, a magazine by serious and thoughtful Catholics, is published twice a month. It offers a broad range of views on controversial social and political issues from the perspective of lay Catholics. Recent issues focused on how John Kerry's approach to his religion may affect the election; an argument that Catholics should support gay marriage - even as their theological views absolutely reject such unions as immoral; and, expectedly, debate about Mel Gibson's 'The Passion of the Christ.'

In a recent article about 'The Passion' that unfortunately is not available online, Rabbi Irving (Yitz) Greenberg wrote:

"Read literally, [the Gospels] are primary sources of hatred and ant-Semitism. In order to atone for past sins and to prevent future evil acts based on Gospel writings, the bishops and the leaders of other churches must confront the New Testament (via modern scholarship or theological critique) or stand convicted of continuing the evils of the rest." Greenberg also calls upon Christians to "reject the glorification of suffering," arguing: "[W]hat kind of love tortures oneself and one's beloved son out of love for another?"

That question, of course, applies as much to Abraham's readiness to accept God's command that he sacrifice Isaac as it does to Christian theology, and it's those types of questions that have made Greenberg quite controversial among observant Jews. One critical letter sounded like a response to a Greenberg call for acceptance of pluralism within Judaism: "If Greenberg wants Christians to become Jews, let him preach that message as much as he wishes. But it is absurd to demand that Christians censor the central documents of their faith." Change "Christians" to "the Orthodox" and "Jews" to "Reform" and, well, you get the idea.

Commonweal does not focus on particularly Jewish issues too often, but has offered an interesting perspective when it has. When Joe Lieberman was nominated as the Democratic vice presidential candidate in 2000, an editorial stated that Lieberman's religious "practice is impressive in seven-day-a-week America: he strictly observes the Sabbath; he prays in the prescribed manner, three times a day, and he and his wife follow Jewish dietary laws." I don't know if those words were motivated by a politically correct support for diversity, if they were completely sincere, or both. It would be good to know that non-Jews (and non-observant Jews) find Jewish observance to be "impressive," not for any self-gratification, but as a sign that we are making some small progress in our mission - as charged by Isaiah - "to be a light unto the nations."

Commonweal is, unfortunately, a grave disappointment when in comes to Israel. Articles by Jews about Israel are from those on the far-left who are critical of it; a 2002 editorial expressed the view that "Palestinians, it is fair to say, are not driven by anti-Semitic fantasies, but have an honest grievance against Israel"; in January 2000, Commonweal's senior writer offensively referred to Israel as "a wealthy and well-armed Goliath" against "a slingless [Palestinian] David"; a 2001 editorial complained about the Bush Administration's closing down a Hamas front, demanding that it also close funds that support Jews living in Judea, Samaria and Gaza (and even the Old City of Jerusalem) - essentially saying that a guy like me who thinks Jews have a right to live in the Gush Etzion towns near Bethlehem is no better than mass murderers; and another editorial said that Prime Minister Sharon "is a man of almost no political imagination. He is little more than a blunt instrument of retribution, a leader who seems incapable of compromise." These pieces were not balanced by pro-Israel ones; indeed, I could not find a single positive article about Israel. The (hopefully erroneous) message that is sent is that when it comes to Israel, Catholics are of one view, a negative one.

Fortunately, Commonweal has, for the most part, left Israel alone over the last two years to focus on some of the interesting topics mentioned above. It's a worthwhile read, and offers much to think about for all religious people striving to balance their beliefs and observances with contributing to a diverse, democratic and pluralistic America.
posted on 6/30/2004

 
20,000th Visitor

It's rather humbling that it's taken almost 12 months since I put a counter on this blog for that counter to register visitor number 20,000. In my defense, the counter has frequently been down, so I've probably been shortchanged 1000 visitors.

Thankfully, visitor number 20,000 was not an anti-Semite searching for "Zionist Conspiracy on 9/11" but a person who simply was looking for "Joe Schick."

If my recollection is accurate, AidelMaidel offered a chocolate bar to her 20,000th visitor. I'm willing to even take the person out for a beer.
posted on 6/25/2004

 
Bruce Ratner to Nets: Drop Dead

Over the years, it has not been easy to be a fan of the New Jersey Nets. The team had many terrible years, a few decent ones, and then many more terrible years.

Then, suddenly, Jason Kidd was acquired, and along with Kenyon Martin and Richard Jefferson, the team not only went to the NBA Finals two years in a row, but has played some fun and exciting basketball.

This season ended disappointingly, with a 7th game defeat against the Detroit Pistons. Given that Kidd was playing hurt and that the team performed much better against the champion Pistons than the Lakers did, there was still reason for optimism about the Nets' future, especially since their star players still have plenty of good basketball left in them.

Suddenly, however, reports in various newspapers are emerging that Bruce Ratner, who is about to be approved as new owner, is insisting that the team be dismantled because he believes salaries are too high.

In the New York Post, Peter Vecsey writes: "If there was any doubt about how much incoming loot owner Bruce Ratner is prepared to invest in Kenyon Martin, it's no longer a mystery. Instead of rewarding the rising restricted free agent with a near max contract, the plan is to try to put him in a sign-and-trade with Denver's Nene — who's locked up for two more years at $2.393M and $3.039M."

The Philadelphia Inquirer's Stephen A. Smith reports: "The New Jersey Nets, small players in this draft, have made it known they may let Kenyon Martin walk away, and are shopping Jason Kidd specifically because new ownership has this ridiculous mandate of getting its franchise under the cap in one season."

In the New York Post, Fred Kerber reported: "In developments that could break up the Nets' trio of Jason Kidd, Kenyon Martin and Richard Jefferson, prospective owner Bruce Ratner has ordered cost-cutting measures that might drastically alter next year's team, according to multiple sources around the club...

"The team is going to look a lot different from the past couple years," one source maintained.

The bottom line: Ratner - who a New York Times article stated said "I'm not into sports" when the idea of buying the Nets first came up - and who plans to move the team to Brooklyn as part of a massive real estate development, bought the team only because of the real estate opportunities it presents. In the Times article, he stated that he long coveted "the Long Island Rail Road yard at Flatbush and Atlantic Avenues" in Brooklyn. "I thought it was a matter of getting them to move over," Ratner said. "Then one day, I realized one would have to buy a team to get them."

He could care less about whether the team goes back to being the NBA's doormat. He just wants the LIRR yards. He needed the Nets to get them, so he bought them, and will now destroy them.

For fans of the team who have remained loyal for decades, this is devastating and infuriating. It's one thing for a team to get old or struggle due to injuries, or even due to poor management decisions. It's something else to lose because the owner is uninterested in the team. If the reports are true, I won't be going to any Nets games - at the Meadowlands or in Brooklyn - for as long as Ratner owns the team.

When his offer to buy the Nets was accepted, the Times reports that Ratner told his workers: "This is not only about basketball. It's about a vision, about housing, about jobs, and an urban landscape we can all be proud of."

Indeed, it's not about basketball at all. And even though I'm from Brooklyn, it's not anything to be proud of.
posted on 6/24/2004

 
Sledge Is Back

The first season of Sledge Hammer!, one of the most underrated comedies in TV history, will be released on DVD next month. The program, a police officer spoof ahead of its time, appeared on ABC for two seasons, from 1986 to 1988, though the first season concluded with Sledge accidentally blowing up the world. Producers had not been expecting the poorly rated show - which had to compete with NBC's ALF - to be picked up for a second season.

I guess I'll have to purchase a DVD player.
posted on 6/17/2004

 
Stupid Column of the Week

I've recently been rather critical of Ariel Sharon. Dismantling the Gaza settlements unilaterally is, in my view, a dangerous encouragement of Palestinian terror and not wise, at least in the near future. I also believe Sharon's broken promise to accept the Likud referendum results, his firing of cabinet ministers who disagree with him, and his threats toward coalition Knesset members are undemocratic and unacceptable.

However, there is a line that respectable observers - particularly in the U.S. - must not cross in response to Sharon's decisions.

In this week's Jewish Press, Isaac Kohn, writes a rant that epitomizes the type of discussion that some narrow-minded American Orthodox Jews might have while at a kiddush.

Kohn drafts, in Sharon's name, an imaginary letter to settlers. He writes, in part:

"When I say I outmaneuvered the enemy, I mean you and the other settlers who are illegally occupying Arab land that we Jews took through armed force. I outmaneuvered your stubborn tactics and your hollow claims.

"Sorry, but let this letter should serve as a reminder that your occupation of the land must end.

"The Arabs have long insisted that the settlements are the obstacles to peace in our region. The world has long concurred. And, recently, I have come to the conclusion that they are right. Our history, unfortunately, is replete with examples of Jewish obstinacy in demanding what is not ours. In fact, the establishment of the State of Israel was contrary to the will of our neighbors, who demanded that Jews find another area in the world to establish their home.

"Through my reading of several Palestinian textbooks I have come to realize that the Arabs settled and built up these once-desolate lands many centuries ago. We really had no business intruding on this pastoral serenity...

"I do not apologize for turning my back on long-held principles. Nor do I apologize for the mass expulsions I am prepared to carry out against you and your compatriots - expulsions that will obliterate forty years of building and planting. Nor do I apologize, dear settler, for misleading you for so many years, for not being true to you, for hiding behind a facade, for wearing a mask. Nor do I, or will I, apologize to the thousands who gave their lives for the lands you claim are G-d-given.

"In large part it is you, the settlers, who are to blame for the predicament in which you find yourselves. You believed in me and followed me blindly all these years, didn't you? You are also to blame for your zeal, for your belief in an ancient, archaic, outmoded and irrelevant book. I blame you for being unbending in your determination to resettle the lands that you insist are an inheritance from your forefathers.

"And I blame you for not paying more attention to the warnings spoken by people like Meir Kahane, who told you that a time would come when I would turn my back on all that you hold sacred. You laughed and ridiculed the notion. How silly of you!

"In closing, I suggest you begin to pack up and rethink your plans so that you may expeditiously evacuate and move elsewhere. And please - do not include Tel Aviv in your plans. It may be next."

There are two things that bother me about this column. First, that the Jewish Press published it. The people who run the paper today are thoughtful enough to know that Kohn's screed is idiotic. It's one thing to offer a rationale for why the political decisions of Sharon and others may be very wrong, even immoral. To insinuate that Sharon is a traitor who believes Israel has no right to a state is a disgrace and does not deserve a forum in a widely-read publication.

I assume that the paper would respond that Kohn is an interesting writer and that it is obvious that this is a satire and that not everything written is to be taken literally. I disagree and think the column speaks for itself in that regard. 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 utterly rejected with complete revulsion.

What's even more troubling is that Kohn's thoughts reflect that of many Orthodox Jews in America, who, never having to serve in Gaza or worry about their children in the IDF, can afford to conveniently take extremist positions and castigate anyone to the left of Meir Kahane as a leftist lover of Arab terrorists. Some of these people won't go to Israel and certainly would never go anywhere near Gaza. Some forbid their kids in Israel from crossing the "Green Line," though to be charitable, they presumably are ignorant enough not to know that large portions of Jewish sections of Jerusalem are outside the Green Line.

Of course, many on the left are no better. Large numbers of non-observant American Jews automatically and thoughtlessly support extremist left-wing positions such as the Geneva Accord. Increasingly, younger secular Jews even support millions of Palestinian "refugees" destroying Israel's existence as a Jewish state.

The reality is that Israel has no peace partner, faces demographic problems, and is diplomatically isolated, with its closest ally refusing to move its embassy to Israel's capital (despite its President's repeated assurances during the 2000 election campaign that his first action as President would be to do so) and often hypocritically and condescendingly tying its hands in its battle against terror. There are no easy solutions. Those of us outside Israel who express an opinion have a duty to carefully think through both sides, explain our conclusions soberly and respectfully, and not denigrate people who have done a lot more for Israel than us.
posted on 6/16/2004

 
June 14, 1994

Tonight is the tenth anniversary of one of the most glorious moments in New York sports history and probably the second greatest moment in United States hockey history.

For anyone who remembers what Madison Square Garden was like at Rangers games in the early 90's, and who has had the misfortune of attending Rangers games in the last few years, it seems like longer. When ESPN Classic recently broadcast several games from the incredibly dramatic playoff series against the New Jersey Devils and Vancouver Canucks, that's what struck me first - the excitement of the crowd, which consistently made it impossible to even hear the national anthem.
posted on 6/14/2004

 
Jewish Press Editorial On Lupolianski

An editorial in this week's Jewish Press strongly criticizes Jerusalem Mayor Uri Lupolianski for not having "lifted a finger to block" last Thursday's "gay pride" parade in Jerusalem. The editorial changes that Lupolianski "refrained even from making any negative comments!"

The editorial could not be more erroneous. In fact, as Haaretz reported on Sunday (and others also have reported), in a radio interview last Friday, Lupolianski condemned the event in the clearest terms:

This is a horrible parade. It is not only ugly, it's also a provocation. It's not appropriate for the city, and it offends the sensibilities of its residents. Even people distant from Jerusalem must grasp that this is a sacred city for the Jewish people, and the world as a whole. This isn't Paris, and it isn't London. I'm not talking about what a person does privately in his home. A parade in public is something else.

Jerusalem is the Holy City, not just for religious people, but in its very essence. There is a difference between everyone dancing his own dance as usual, and having a parade, which is an attempt to jump and stomp on the toes of the general public. If somebody has some sort of deviant trait, it doesn't mean that he has to raise its banner in public.

If I had the legal means to stop a parade that harms the city and its residents, I would prevent the parade. I tried to do so, but it was made clear to me that I don't have the authority.
posted on 6/10/2004

 
Hate Mail

Since the name of this site is currently "The Zionist Conspiracy," it generates a fair amount of hate e-mail from paranoid crazies from around the world.

Some people are even stupid enough to post their venom in the comments. This morning, for example, one guy wrote, "your all faggots" while a few minutes later, someone posting under a different name expressed "agreement" and added some anti-Semitic spice. By miraculous coincidence, both of these idiots have the same IP Address: 204.117.156.83.

The comments have now been deleted.
posted on 6/09/2004

 
Orthodox Jews and TV in 2004

The yeshiva elementary school I attended from 1978-1986 was ideologically confused. The only non-chasidic yeshiva in Boro Park, its student body largely came from modern or centrist Orthodox families. The all boys school was clearly more liberal than the charedi yeshivas in Flatbush, and more strict than the proudly modern Orthodox schools in the area.

In a way that was a good thing, except for the school's self-consciousness at being labeled "modern" by those on its right. It would try to compensate in bizarre ways, such as when I was in sixth or seventh grade, and the school suddenly decided that velvet yarmulkes and knitted yarmulkes were okay, but not suede yarmulkes. Even if one accepts that what kind of yarmulke a person wears is at all relevant, this particular decision was non-sensical, since both suede and knitted yarmulkes cause discomfort among the charedi yeshivas. In a hilarious incident, one day the principal did a spot check of yarmulkes, and upon his entrance, one boy quickly placed a black velvet yarmulke atop his knitted yarmulke. The principal saw this, removed the velvet yarmulke and angrily chided the student for "putting a different yarmulke on top of the perfectly kosher one you were already wearing."

Another area of confusion in that school was television. Officially, watching TV was discouraged, but almost everyone in the school had televisions and watched TV. Unlike the high school I later attended, in which the principal railed against television and referred to parents who had TV's in the house as "either idiots or hypocrites," this school tacitly accepted that TV was a part of its students' lives.

When it came to choosing members of the school's honor society, how much TV one watched became an important issue. Joining the honor society was desirable because it allowed the honoree to skip a day of school late in the year to go to Great Adventures, a New Jersey theme park. As the trip grew closer and it became necessary for the school to fill its buses to make the trip economically feasible, the principal would come into class to interview students, mainly to ask how much TV they watched. Officially the limit was 30 minutes a day except for sports, which had a 60 minute limit. I passed the test despite candidly telling the principal that during football season, I watched TV all day on Sunday. Another kid admitted that he could not miss the A-Team each Tuesday night, which, of course ran for an hour. While a logical solution would have been for him to agree to forego his 30 minute allowance on some other night, he too received a dispensation.

In those days, the shows we watched were programs like the A-Team, Greatest American Hero, McGyver, Cheers, the Cosby Show, Diff'rent Strokes, Magnum P.I. and Family Ties. Today, reruns of those shows are often rated G.

For an observant Jew, it's easy to rail against the declining standards of what appears on television today. When the New York Times, hardly a prudish media outlet controlled by the religious right is strongly critical, it's hard not to take notice.

The Times' Alessandra Stanley is to be credited with her column last Thursday. As she wrote, "networks justify their slumming by insisting that such shows are breaking down unhealthy taboos; but there are no taboos left on television, except perhaps, girls behaving decently."

It's easy to tell people to simply turn off the television if one doesn't like what's on. Both liberals and the charedi world make that argument. The problem is that what's shown on TV cannot be separated from the standards of the society we live in. Withdrawal from that society is not impossible, but it carries a heavier cost than simply changing the channel.

The declining standards of American society were well illustrated the other night, on MTV's Punk'd, Ashton Kutcher's hidden camera practical joke program. I was flipping channels during a break in Game 1 of the Lakers vs. Pistons championship series. A joke was being played on actress Shannon Elizabeth. She and her husband had just returned from a vacation, and she was meeting with her publicity staff. They informed her that the Enquirer and similar tabloids were set to report that a hidden camera in her hotel room had taped intimate acts of her and her husband. Elizabeth began crying and called her husband, who was in on the "joke" and MTV filmed away as they "privately" discussed very personal details of their vacation. A minute or two later, Elizabeth was told it was all a joke.

Quite recently, lower-class folks who appeared on Jerry Springer to reveal all their personal details were derided as pathetic. Now, the husband of a wealthy actress thinks it is amusing to reveal their own private information to the world. TV has been a major influence in this decline in moral values, but the problem is much deeper.

Getting rid of one's TV or limiting the stations one can access might be a partial solution, but ultimately the challenge of those of us who are observant but who choose to be an active part of American society goes beyond that. I don't think there's a simple answer either on an individual, familial or community level, but the issue needs to be soberly considered by serious observant Jews. While the approach of my elementary school principal was not especially sophisticated, its pragmatic recognition of reality was, in retrospect, a good start.
posted on 6/08/2004

 
Gaza Demographics

One of the common arguments by those opposed to withdrawal from Gaza goes something like this:

"People ask how 7,500 Jews can live in Gaza surrounded by over a million Arabs who want to kill them. Well, if that's the case, then how can 5 million Jews live in the Middle East, surrounded by hundreds of millions of Muslims who want to kill them?"

Here are two reasons why this argument fails. First, Israel is at least tacitly recognized as a legitimate state by the developed world. It's not treated like one, but there is official recognition. In contrast, nobody recognizes the legitimacy of Israel's settlement in Gaza.

Second, Israel's being surrounded by hundreds of millions of Arabs is exactly why it is difficult to envision retaining even 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 way, it can try to achieve a separation from the world around it, as an oasis of democracy, development and sanity in an otherwise crazed region.

This strategy would not be compromised by settlement in, and eventual annexation of, certain parts of Judea and Samaria, which has lots of empty space and plenty of room for development. Gaza, however, is among the most crowded areas in the world, and the high birthrate among Arabs there is making things even worse.

This is not to say I support the Sharon plan. While I expect Sharon's unilateral withdrawal plan to eventually go forward, I oppose it because he lied outright when he promised to respect the results of the Likud referendum and 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 has succeeded and that Israel is on the run.
posted on 6/03/2004