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

 
Robert Avrech On The Tsunami

As usual, Robert Avrech has it right with respect to the terrible tragedy in Asia:

I lurk on Jewish websites for grieving parents and everyone seems to ask the same question about this massive tragedy: what did God have in mind? And anyone who is foolish enough to answer looks, well, foolish. All answers are simplistic and reductive, and leave only larger questions that are all but unanswerable. I have no patience for the pat answers that some people propose: It's a test, it's an accounting, ultimately it's all for the good... These truly dumb answers bring out a kind of maniacal fury in me.

When Ariel was sick, I stopped looking for answers because, I quickly discovered, it was a waste of time. As Job (42:3) says to HaShem: I can understand nothing. It is beyond me. I shall never know.
posted on 12/29/2004

 
Judaism and Tragedy Redux

A friend of mine sent the following to me yesterday in the form of an e-mail, my responses are dispersed throughout and appear in italics:


I had a shiur on Shabbat which strayed from its usual topic. The Rabbi gave a mussar talk on your favorite topic: the World Trade center disaster and Hashem's intervention for the good. Well, he mainly focused on Hatzolah and said we may not be able to see why things happened at teh time, or maybe even never, but that Hashem plans everything for a reason. I re-read your comments on your Blog. Now while you object to the terminology "for the good" and state that mourning is also an important Jewish mitzvah, do you also object to the deterministic view that Hashem plans everything - no chance?

I believe that people have free will to do what they want in life. As for whether Hashem plans all external events (i.e. illness, tragedy, good fortune, etc.), I don’t know. I believe that Hashem can and does intervene in the world, but also believe that Hashem usually allows the world to operate b'derech hatevah, in its normal course. In other words, Hashem may allow a tragedy like 9/11 to happen by not stopping evildoers like Bin Laden.

I suppose this means that everything as a whole is directed by Hashem for some higher good, reason, or goal, not necessarily an individual's particular good or goal. So many of the sages in their mussar works defend this concept.

This I agree with – that an individual’s good may not be the right perspective, but the good of the Jewish people or perhaps the entire world.

So who (what sages) agrees with you that "for the good is wrong"? Or maybe you just object to trying to find miracles in everything bad, although I think that may be the other sides point: that no matter how awful a tragedy, it is directed at some goal by Hashem. Perhaps we don't have to take joy in the idea that Hashem allows tragedies to occur even though there is some distant goal in mind.

I don't have a problem with the concept of gam zu l'tovah in the abstract, but do have a problem in looking for non-existent miracles in terrible tragedies, as well as trying to decipher these miracles and the reasons for tragedy as though we have a direct line to G-d.

In addition, even if we believe the view of a higher good behind a tragedy, we might not have the right to tell those suffering that there is a higher good or even try to speculate for them what it is. Instead we help them mourn.

Yes, and this is supported by the mourning in Judaism both for personal losses (shiva, kaddish, etc.) and for communal tragedy (i.e. Tisha B’av and the other fast days).

I wonder if the need to say it is all for the good is more of a coping devise for people who did not suffer than for those who did. I remember hearing Elie Wiesel coping with this issue of when asked by Oprah Winfrie if he thought he was special for surviving. He said no and that people far greater than him perished. I think it is hard for people to live through a disaster or escape it and they need to reconile their feelings even if it flies in the face of the sufferers themselves.

I think all of it is a coping device for people who did not suffer. I would never object to someone who is in mourning or endured a loss from saying "it's all for the good," but nearly always it's others who say it on other's behalf.
posted on 12/29/2004

 
Tsunami Coverage

I don't have time to follow the news as closely as usual (and my cable box is broken), but my sense is that in the immediate aftermath of the disaster in Asia, the media was rather apathetic. While the tragedy was hardly ignored, it wasn't covered nearly as closely as it should have been. Now that a death toll in the tens of thousands has been confirmed (with more than a million losing their homes), media interest has picked up.

The media apathy likely stems from two sources. First, there wasn't much dramatic video footage. Second, and more disturbingly, the U.S. especially is more concerned about relatively trivial matters here than global disasters.
posted on 12/28/2004

 
Jets, Nets & Mets II

1. When I was 17 just out of a charedi high school, I somehow got a job covering U.S. sports for The Jerusalem Post. I was in very close proximity with other members of the media during games.

Most media members are down to earth, but some have an excessive sense of self-importance, believing that they themselves are the main story.

The media's current obsession about Chad Pennington's refusal to answer questions after Sunday's game is a good illustration. Pennington probably shouldn't have blown the reporters off, but who really cares? Certainly not the average Jets fan. All I care about is that he was fantastic on Sunday, throwing three touchdowns and making no mistakes.

2. The Vince Carter trade is a good one, even if Jason Kidd continues to insist on being traded, as I expect he will. The Nets didn't give up any players who can't eventually be replaced. In the meantime, their frontcourt and defense are awful, but the reality is that they aren't a championship contender this year anyway. A core of Kidd, Jefferson and Carter, with the additions of a solid power forward and some depth in the form of big men for the bench, might put the Nets back among the Eastern Conference elite next season, though I'm skeptical that Bruce (The Rat) Ratner will spend the money to sign a legitimate power forward and backup center.

If Kidd goes, the Nets might be able to acquire a younger point guard and decent power forward in return.

The Carter trade is an acknowledgment that letting Kenyon Martin go was a terrible idea, but by no means makes up for it. The damage from selling off K-Mart is not reversible. Martin is a better fit in the Nets offense than Carter is, and he, Kidd and Jefferson had excellent chemistry. If the Nets had kept Martin, Alonzo Mourning would have stayed and Aaron Williams - who went to Toronto in the Carter trade - would have provided insurance as a backup power forward and center.

3. I'm still skeptical about Pedro Martinez, but admit that it will be fun watching him pitch at Shea.

Some of GM Omar Minaya's moves continue to puzzle me, though. Last night he declined to tender a contract to Orber Moreno, who pitched very effectively last season before injuring his shoulder. As a result Moreno is now a free agent and probably won't be back.

Perhaps Moreno's injury is serious, but if he signs elsewhere and pitches well, Minaya's move will be costly. Moreno is relatively low cost (he earned a little over $300,000 last season) and it's not easy to find young effective relievers for under half a million dollars.

UPDATE: My criticism of Omar Minaya's decision to allow Orber Moreno to become a free agent appears to have been premature, in light of the Mets' signing Moreno to a minor league contract. Hopefully Moreno's rehab will be a success and he will make the major league team and pitch effectively again in 2005 and beyond.
posted on 12/21/2004

 
Jets, Nets & Mets

1. My first child, a baby boy, was born on Sunday afternoon just before the 1:00 games. After four hours in the nursery, he joined us in my wife's room during the second quarter of the Jets vs. Steelers game.

He quickly discovered that life as a Jets fan can be frustrating. He's not old enough to yell at Paul Hackett's predictable playcalling or the pathetic 12 first half penalties. But even in his first hours, he expressed his disgust at the Jets in other ways, by sleeping and crying throughout the game, and, in a mischievous allusion to Chad Pennington's performance, soiling his first diaper as things went awry in the second half.

2. In early July, Bruce (The Rat) Ratner assured Nets fans that "Cost-cutting is absolutely not my intention. 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."

When the Nets let Martin go two weeks later, Ratner insisted he made the right move, claiming, in an interview with Harvey Araton of the New York Times, that signing Martin would have been a financial disaster.

Now, in Tuesday's Times, The Rat says that getting rid of the Nets soul "hurt everything. It was a mistake." He says the Nets should have offered Martin a contract, instead of refusing to negotiate, as they did. Of course, he doesn't take responsibility, eloquently explaining, "There was a lot going on." Ratner assures us that even though he let Martin leave for virtually nothing at that time, "my conclusion was overwhelming, it's better to keep Kenyon." He blames others for convincing him to sell K-Mart to Denver.

Finally, Ratner displays his basketball acumen in concluding, "Yes, we don't have Kenyon but we have Jason. If we keep Jason, there's no reason why we shouldn't be very good." The Rat only knows real estate, not anything about basketball, so he doesn't understand that if, after the Nets jettisoned more than half of their team, Jason Kidd has nobody to pass the ball to, and the Nets can't play defense or rebound, they shouldn't and won't "be very good" even with Kidd. Perhaps The Rat might understand better if a real estate analogy was offered: If you sell Central Park and move half of Manhattan's businesses, real estate on 5th Avenue might go down just a bit.

3. If the rumors are true, the Mets are going to sign Pedro Martinez to a 4 year deal for $56 million. That's a lot of money for a power pitcher with a bad shoulder and declining velocity.

Many predict that Pedro will become another Mo Vaughn, an injured bust who doesn't last even one season, let alone all four. They may be right. On the other hand, Martinez might be another Roger Clemens. The Sox let Clemens go after the 1996 season, when he was 34, concluding that he was past his prime. Four Cy Young Awards and 136 wins later, the decision was clearly awful.

I think it's possible Pedro can be a very good pitcher over the next four seasons, but I can't say I like this move. When the Yankees spend big money on someone like Kevin Brown and it doesn't work out as hoped, they just move on to the next star, like Carl Pavano, even while continuing to pay a disappointment like Brown.

In contrast, the Mets have broken the bank with Martinez, and if things don't work out and they're stuck with his huge contract, it'll prevent them from signing other players. The Mets need to get younger and try to build a team that could contend consistently down the line. If they are going to maintain relative fiscal restraint, they can't afford to make mistakes with players near the end of their careers, who will have no trade value in the event of injury.
posted on 12/14/2004

 
Classless Minaya

Some of the rumored moves by Mets GM Omar Minaya are quite puzzling, but I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt until those moves actually happen.

However, an article in Thursday's New York Times about Minaya's treatment of Al Leiter is very disappointing.

The Times reports that Minaya gave Leiter a low-ball offer and just three days to accept, and then, when Leiter's agents called to accept, failed to return the call and ultimately rescinded the offer.

After seven years pitching for the Mets, Leiter deserved to be let go with decency and respect. Personally, I think he pitched well enough last season to warrant coming back for another year. But while I can live with the decision to pursue another pitcher, Minaya's classless tactics are unacceptable.

Ironically, the despicable treatment of Leiter does indicate that Minaya has autonomy to make personnel decisions. Leiter is close to Mets ownership, and the Wilpons cannot be happy about the way the team's long relationship with Leiter ended.
posted on 12/08/2004

 
OU and Baruch Goldstein

The winter issue of Jewish Action - the magazine published by the Orthodox Union - arrived at my home last night, and I was very disappointed to read an absurd defense of Baruch Goldstein by Toby Klein Greenwald.

The new issue is not yet online at the Orthodox Union's website, but apparently in a previous issue that I did not receive, Ms. Greenwald referred to Goldstein's murder of 29 Arabs at Maarot Hamachpelah in Hebron as an "incident." A reader appropriately wrote a letter to the editor to object, pointing out that Goldstein killed 29 civilians and that nothing justifies his actions.

Ms. Greenwald responded in length by questioning whether Goldstein's victims were in fact innocent, and rehashed as factual all the exaggerated defenses of Goldstein emanating from the extreme right. Worse, Ms. Greenwald extensively cites a recent book by Chaim Simons about Goldstein, and quotes a few passages from Simons that make him sound as though he is objective. In fact, while Simons may raise some legitimate questions, he has long advocated extremist positions such as transfer of at least some Arabs from Israel, and his book ultimately suggests (though it takes pains not to "conclude") that Goldstein's killing of 29 Arabs was justified under halacha as an act of self-defense. The 1929 massacre of Jewish Hebron residents is used as a prime argument in favor of Goldstein, ignoring that the IDF did not exist then.

The morality of killing Arabs aside for just a moment, Greenwald and Simons also do not appear bothered by the fact that Goldstein's murder was the proximate cause for Prime Minister Rabin's transfer of Ohel Yitzchak - by far the main sanctuary in Maarot Hamachpelah - to Muslims on all but a handful of days. Thanks to Goldstein, Ohel Yitzchak is defiled each and every day by Islamic fundamentalist crazies. Prior to 1994, while Arabs did conduct prayer services there, Israel maintained primary control over all three sanctuaries in Maarot Hamachpelah.

Goldstein also ensured that Arab terror attacks were seen as part of the "cycle of violence." For a long time after the Goldstein massacre, the New York Times and other major media outlets mentioned the Hebron massacre whenever covering a Hamas terror attack.

To me, one's stance on the murders by Goldstein and by Yigal Amir (of Prime Minister Rabin) are a barometer of whether one's views can be deemed within the realm of political sanity. To the extent that the idea that either act was justified can be deemed at all legitimate within observant Jewry, grievous harm will be done to our spiritual, moral and political standing.

The OU generally offers a moderate political voice, and while Ms. Greenwald's response cannot be ascribed to the OU, it would have been appropriate for the editor to have issued a short note stating that the views she and Simons express are theirs alone, and not those of the Orthodox Union. I don't believe they did, though it's possible that I missed a disclaimer.
posted on 12/03/2004

 
Judaism and Tragedy

Four months ago, I posted to lament the ridiculous miracle books claiming that the 9/11 disaster was somehow mitigated by a large number of miracles. I wrote, in part, that "I view all the miracle stories as indicative of a great deal of immaturity among some observant Jews. The idea being sent seems to be that God protected certain people because of their piety. We are supposed to believe that scores of people arrived late to work because of an old man who delayed morning services, or that a woman locked herself out of her house and called her husband home from work, where most of his colleagues perished."

A post by Robert J. Avrech about his experience at a Camp Simcha retreat for parents who have lost a child further illustrates this point.

Mr. Avrech writes that at a group session, one man who lost a child repeated the phrase "Gam zu L'tova." - "This too is ultimately for the good." Mr. Avrech, fuming, responded about his son Ariel's passing: "Ariel suffered horribly for years and years. There was nothing good about that. Ariel wanted to live. He fought every inch of the way. He did not give up; he did not surrender. He wanted to live. He did not want to die. So there is no way you can convince me that his death, or the death of any of our children is ultimately for the good. The death of these good and holy children is horrible. I resent what you are saying. It's an insult to me, and also an insult to my son!"

I don't think Mr. Avrech's anger was really directed at the man who lost a child. Rather, it likely came from a build up of fury directed at all those who told him that Ariel is now in a "better place", that it was all part of "G-d's plan", and that "this too is ultimately for the good."

I remember once attending the funeral of a 41 year old mother of three children. Several speakers stated that it was a great miracle that this woman lived nearly 18 months after being diagnosed with cancer. After all, her doctors had expected her only to live a year.

After the 9/11 disaster, a friend of mine assured me that those who were murdered on that day were now in a much better place. In fact, he even assured me that they would refuse to come back to earth if given the chance, since they were in the Garden of Eden. "What about their families?", I asked him. "Don't they need them here?" He acknowledged that this was a "problem" but continued to assure me that in the end, Hashem only acts for the good and that there was no need to be so depressed.

I doubt that these kinds of well-meaning but extremely insensitive statements are made only by observant Jews. I assume that a lot of people from all faiths and a lot of people who are secular, not knowing what to say and perhaps wanting to comfort themselves, recite silly cliches about tragic events and to those in mourning.

What bothers me, however, is that Judaism recognizes that not everything is for the good. While Nachum Ish Gam Zu's concept of "gam zu l'tovah" may be an ideal and a way to avoid despair, we are in fact required to mourn both personal tragedies and national tragedies. We don't claim that the destruction of the First Temple and Second Temple were really good; instead we have fast days to remember the destruction of the Temples and of Jerusalem. Even as we celebrate our liberation from Egypt, we eat bitter herbs on Pesach in memory of our slavery there. With respect to the national tragedies, we don't equivocate and pretend that a miracle actually occurred in our favor. For some reason many of us do engage in such equivocation with respect to personal tragedies - especially when it is someone else's personal tragedy. We should know better than that.
posted on 12/02/2004

 
Pet Projects

Today's New York Times reports on Shinui's voting against Likud's proposed budget because it "offered United Torah Judaism some $67 million in support for its pet projects."

In fact, the $67 million (or more precisely, the 290 million shekels), were to be allocated to charedi yeshivas, which have incurred previous budget cuts in that last two years far in excess of that amount.

I'm pretty cynical about the political machinations of Shas and UTJ, each of which bases its political stances on supreme national issues upon whether the government funds its institutions. UTJ was until a few days ago a staunch opponent of the Sharon plan to withdraw from Gaza and part of Samaria. Now they are ready to join the government. Shas too is figuring out a way to wiggle out of its attacks on Sharon's political shift.

That said, referring to partial restoration of funding for yeshivas as "pet projects" is offensive and inaccurate. While it was in the coalition, Shinui demanded funding for universities and "cultural institutions." It is unlikely that the Times would refer to that funding as being for Shinui "pet projects."
posted on 12/02/2004