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

 
Arutz Sheva Confuses Israel With USSR

Likud leader Binyamin Netanyahu is proposing that the party disqualify anyone who has been sentenced to a prison term of three months or more from being a Likud candidate for a Knesset seat. The proposal is clearly aimed at Moshe Feiglin, who was sentenced to a prison term on trumped up charges of sedition for his illegal protests against the Rabin government. While I'm not a fan of Feiglin, I don't like the proposal at all.

There are plenty of reasonable ways to express one's opposition to the Netanyahu proposal, but in the latest sign that Arutz Sheva has veered from being a far right-wing but still journalistically respectable outlet, the site submits a bizarre argument that the proposal would disqualify Likud ex-Soviet dissidents like Natan Sharansky and Yuli Edelstein from running on the Likud list, since Sharansky and Edelstein both were imprisoned by the Soviet Union.

It would seem to be quite obvious that a proposal by an Israeli party banning those who served prison terms would only apply to those who served prison terms in Israel, and certainly not those who were imprisoned in a totalitarian regime like the Soviet Union, which for decades was an enemy of Israel.
posted on 12/29/2005

 
Dual Hashkafah Theory

Much has been written about the dual covenant theory for Judaism and Christianity, a theory that has never made much sense to me.

I'm wondering whether it's time for those of us who are observant Jews with ties to both the charedi and modern sectors of Orthodoxy to promote a dual hashkafah theory. (Hashkafah refers to Jewish thought and/or ideology.)

The dual hashkafah theory does not call for complete pluralism within Orthodoxy. Instead, it would seek a tacit acceptance among the majority of Orthodox Jews for the legitimacy of certain views and practices prevalent in large sectors of Orthodoxy.

For example, within the charedi world, serious study of Jewish texts by females has increased substantially over the last generation. However, for a variety of reasons, the idea of females studying Talmud remains a non-starter, and that's not going to change anytime soon. I don't think those who are not charedi should push for change in this area or denigrate or even challenge the charedi norm. They should accept and understand that Bais Yaakovs and charedi seminaries won't teach gemara.

At the same time, those who are charedi should accept and even respect the fact that in virtually the entire non-charedi world, the idea of Talmud study by females is now fully accepted.

Israel is another issue to which the dual hashkafah theory would apply. Most charedim actually have a positive view toward the State of Israel. Most non-charedim don't really believe that Israel is definitely the start of a messianic redemptive process. The differences are largely based upon a view regarding whether the idea of secular Zionism was religiously and historically a good thing, with the charedim focusing more on the extreme secularism of the early Zionists, and the non-charedim focusing on the obvious historic evidence that Jews would be a lot better off had we all formed a state and gotten out of Europe sooner. Both of these viewpoints have legitimacy; can't they coexist together?

Over time, differences in hashkafah are often accepted within normative Orthodoxy. Ideas, sects and practices that once were deemed radical or even heretical often ultimately receive acceptance. There is no need today for any group to embrace or accept radical change, but practices that are mainstream within large sectors of Orthodoxy should generally (there may be certain exceptions) be accepted as legitimate by those in other sectors.
posted on 12/28/2005

 
Rabbi Shmuel Kamenetsky On Slifkin

A couple of days ago, Gil Student offered his thoughts on the recent developments in the Slifkin controversy, in which, as he puts it, three weeks ago, "R. Shmuel Kamenetsky, R. Aharon Schechter, and R. Ya'akov Perlow--signed letters condemning R. Slifkin in somewhat vague terms, almost a full year after the original scandal surfaced and after months of relative quiet."

My understanding - based upon second hand information - is that R. Kamenetsky's position is that he has not withdrawn his haskamah (rabbinical approbation) on R. Slifkin's books, but criticized Rabbi Slifkin for other writings that he deemed to be unacceptable. It wasn't clear whether R. Kamenetsky was referring to R. Slifkin's recent essay about jumping elephants, or something else entirely. In any event, coming - as Gil says - in a period of relative quiet, the vague statement reeks of politics within the Moetzes and unfortunately does not increase the stature of the "gedolim."
posted on 12/27/2005

 
Just One More Game To Go

Two fourth quarter touchdowns made the final score of 31-21 look decent, but in reality it was yet another miserable performance by the Jets, who were completely dominated and didn't even manage to get a first down until late in the 3rd quarter. As usual, the players came out flat.

Before the game, head buffoon Herm Edwards said that he hoped the Jets could win one of their last two games because finishing with a .500 record at home would be "a nice achievement."

For those watching the draft pick standings, it was also a dismal week for the Jets. With Houston at 2-13 and four teams tied with 3 wins, the tiebreaker for draft pick order will be determined based upon strength of schedule, with the teams with the weaker schedules picking first. Coming into week 16, the Jets were tied with the Saints and ahead of Green Bay - both of whom are also 3-12 - in strength of schedule. But this week, the Jets' 2005 opponents went 11-5, resulting in the Jets now being well behind the Saints and tied with the Packers. Even if the Jets lose next week, they might still end up with only the fourth pick in the 2006 draft. If they win, they may pick as low as seventh. On the other hand, if the Jets lose, Houston beats the 49ers and some other things fall into place, it's still conceivable that the Jets could end up with the top pick. Stay tuned.
posted on 12/27/2005

 
Ben Brafman and Shabbos

In his article in the new Winter 2005 issue of Jewish Action (not yet online), criminal defense attorney Benjamin Brafman recalls the not guilty verdict after the trial of Sean ("Puff Daddy") Combs, whom Brafman represented with Johnny Cochran.

Brafman writes that "With shabbat rapidly approaching, I left the courtroom where hundreds of reporters waited to discuss the verdict. I was very conscious of the fact that every word I said would be quoted all over the world, but also well aware that it was already very late." Brafman then says that he gave a very short statement to the media, concluded by saying "Shabbat is coming," and "then jumped into a waiting car and sped away."

Brafman then writes that "for months following the trial, people I did not even know would stop me on the street to tell me how my public announcement about not working on Shabbat made it much easier for them to explain observance issues to their own employers."

Without going into too much detail, suffice to say that the Puff Daddy trial ended after the start of shabbos. By the time Brafman "jumped into a waiting car and sped away," it was not only "very late" but shabbat had, by any standard, already come.

In an interview last year with The Jerusalem Post, Brafman was described as "a modern Orthodox Jew who says he tries not to work on Shabbat."

According to a 2000 feature about Brafman: "Being an observant Jew, says Brafman, can at times impact on his professional obligations. Then he'll make compromises.

"When a trial is in critical posture during a religious holiday, it might be impossible for him to be at Beth Sholom Synagogue in Lawrence, Long Island, where he is a trustee. He'll stay in a hotel and walk to court so that his client not suffer from his absence."

My purpose in writing this post is not to discuss Brafman's level of religious observance, but to question his offering of himself as a role model for frum professionals, many of whom pay a professional price for their faithful observance of shabbos.

Toward the conclusion of his Jewish Action piece, criticizing frum people who violate secular law, Brafman writes: "You cannot be frum if you are not frum. It is that simple. You cannot be strictly observant yet pick the rules you live by. Torah Judaism does not allow for selective enforcement of halachah."

Indeed.
posted on 12/26/2005

 
Moshe Feiglin

Following last week's Likud primary, there were all sorts of stories from the media reporting on the purported rise of Moshe Feiglin.

Feiglin openly espouses a plan under which his religious and extreme right-wing faction will slowly take over Likud from within.

Last week, Feiglin received 12 percent of the votes in the Likud primary.

Considering that around 55,000 people voted in the primary, this means that around 6700 people voted for Feiglin.

Somehow, the news that 6700 people voted for Moshe Feiglin resulted in all kinds of scorn from the left-wing media (as well as from Ehud Olmert of Kadima, who was only elected to the current Knesset due to a deal with Feiglin, a separate issue), warning that Likud had now officially become a fanatical party. The right-wing media had similar reports, excitedly informing us that the 12 percent support for Feiglin proved that his popularity is soaring.

In reality, while Feiglin is a pest within Likud, he remains a very minor and marginal political figure in Israel. Politically, his stature is mostly in his own mind.
posted on 12/26/2005

 
Binyamin Netanyahu

I may be one of the few people who likes Binyamin Netanyahu, who is now back as leader of the Likud - albeit a Likud in crisis following Prime Minister Sharon's formation of the Kadima party.

No doubt, Netanyahu is an opportunist, but no more than most Israeli politicians. As I see it, Netanyahu has long been torn between his nationalist ideology and his sense that one needs to be pragmatic. In other words, between his heart and his mind.

I am sympathetic with that inner conflict because it is one that I fully share. I too have right-wing sentiments in constant battle with my understanding that political moderation and pragmatism are necessary in the support of Israel's rights in Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria.

When push comes to shove, Netanyahu usually chooses the pragmatic approach, infuriating the right-wing. That's what happened when he implemented the withdrawal from Hebron (an agreement signed by Prime Minister Rabin under Oslo 2), the Wye Agreement, and his initial (if highly conditional and very unenthusiastic) support for the Gaza withdrawal.

Ultimately, however, Netanyahu's ideology tugs at him. As a result, though at Wye he agreed to cede 13 percent of Judea and Samaria, he only implemented a withdrawal from two percent, because the Palestinians did not comply with their obligation to crush Hamas. When Sharon ignored Netanyahu's demands relating to Gaza, Netanyahu resigned from the government and expressed opposition to any unilateral withdrawal. And it was Netanyahu who, when Sharon accepted a Palestinian state in 2002, challenged Sharon in the Likud primaries. And lost.

All of this infuriates the Israeli media. For them, it's bad enough to be right-wing, but to tease them with moderation like Netanyahu does only to then return to his right-wing instincts is deemed unforgivable.

The sad thing, for those on the right, is that whenever he chooses his heart over his mind, Netanyahu loses. The Likud battle over a Palestinian state was one example. Another was the aftermath of the Wye agreement. It infuriated the right, which idiotically responded by bringing down his government. When Netanyahu then wouldn't implement the withdrawal, he infuriated the center, and lost the ensuing election to Ehud Barak whose concessions dwarfed anything Netanyahu ever imagined.

A Likud victory in the upcoming election remains very unlikely, but if it makes a respectable showing and finishes ahead of Labor, Netanyahu hopefully won't be deposed as its leader and will remain either as Sharon's senior coalition partner or as leader of the opposition, a position in which he excelled from 1993-1996 when he eloquently led the opposition to the Rabin-Peres government's concessions to the Palestinians and Syrians.

While those on the extreme right may not see much difference between Likud under Netanyahu and Kadima under Sharon, it's worth remembering, as Caroline Glick points out in today's Jerusalem Post, that a few months ago, Ehud Olmert, likely Kadima's number 2 to Sharon, told the Israel Policy Forum: "We are tired of fighting, we are tired of being courageous, we are tired of winning, we are tired of defeating our enemies."

Netanyahu understands that, unfortunately, Israel still must continue to fight, be courageous, win, and defeat its enemies. If for no other reason than that, the distinction between Likud and Kadima is quite clear.
posted on 12/23/2005

 
Orthodoxy Test

I just took the Orthodoxy Test, which purports to determine whether one is right-wing yeshivish charedi; left-wing yeshivish charedi; right-wing modern orthodox; or left-wing modern orthodox.

I found some the choices of answers to some of the questions to miss the potential nuances within Orthodox thought. For example, the possible answers to the question about the religious significance of the State of Israel left out what I believe: That the State is positive and religiously significant, but not necessarily part of a redemptive messianic process.

Anyway, the test concluded that I am...

"Huh?... I give up. What are you?"

Apparently, I am definitely not left-wing modern orthodox or right-wing charedi. My test scores (whatever they mean) were:

Left Wing Modern Orthodox: 17%
Right Wing Modern Orthodox: 52%
Left Wing Yeshivish/Chareidi: 48%
Right Wing Yeshivish/Chareidi: 19%

I guess this means I am right on the border between rebellious, heretical left-wing charedi, and upstanding, righteous, right-wing modern Orthodox.
posted on 12/23/2005

 
Stay Tuned

Between the latest Lakewood controversy, the shocking departure of Johnny Damon from the Red Sox and the more shocking signing of Damon by the Yankees, the again woeful New York Rangers, the return of Binyamin Netanyahu to the leadership of Likud, and the absurd selection of Ty Law to the Pro Bowl, there's a lot to post about.

Unfortunately, the transit strike is wreaking havoc on my schedule, causing me to arrive very late to work and very late back home at night. All of this leaves me no time at all for blogging.

I hope to back posting soon, certainly before Likud deposes Netanyahu.
posted on 12/21/2005

 
God, Gush Katif and Ariel Sharon

Early Sunday afternoon, when Prime Minister Sharon was rushed to Hadassah Hospital and preliminary reports were sketchy as to his condition and prognosis, I feared, in addition for Sharon's health, that if the worst were to happen, many frum people would declare that God had punished Sharon for the evacuation of Gush Katif. It seems that rationalism is becoming increasingly scarce in the frum world.
posted on 12/20/2005

 
Ushpizin

I was all set to attend the U.S. premiere for Ushpizin at the Tribeca Film Festival last April. Alas a double gas leak in my apartment scuttled those plans. I finally had a chance to see the Israeli film centered on a charedi couple on Saturday night.

One of the previews prior to the start of the movie was for an upcoming film with lesbian overtones. I could not help but feel bad for frum people who typically avoid movie theaters, made an exception for Ushpizin, and then were offended by that preview.

As for Ushpizin, while the story itself is a fairly simple fable and some might say it's a bit contrived, the script is very sharp and engaging and the acting is truly superb.

By far, Ushpizin is the most authentic film depicting frum people and frum life.

It's been said (accurately) that the real star of a certain former HBO show starring Sarah Jessica Parker was New York City.

L'Havdil (in extreme contrast), at least for me, the star of Ushpizin is the city of Jerusalem. The price of admission and a babysitter was well worth the feeling that I was back in Jerusalem for 90 minutes.
posted on 12/19/2005

 
Hopeless With Herm

For the fourth time this season, the Jets had a chance to win a game on a late 4th quarter drive. For the fourth time, their drive stalled and they lost, snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

Yesterday, after moving from their own 13 yard line to the Dolphins 14, the Jets had 1st and 5 with 1:03 and one timeout left. Not a huge amount of time, but certainly more than enough to run at least once, and throw the ball over the middle.

Instead, predictably, head coach Herm Edwards and offensive coordinator Mike Heimerdinger panicked, apparently thinking there was too little time to do anything other than pass to the end zone.

And so the Jets threw a quick fade to Justin McCareins in the corner of the end zone on first down, an overthrown pass out of the end zone to Jerricho Cotchery on second down, and another quick end zone fade on third down to Laveranues Coles. All were incomplete. On 4th down, they finally tried for the first down on a short pass to Doug Jolley, who was well covered and couldn't get to the ball.

In his postgame press conference, Edwards was asked about the playcalling. As usual whenever he's asked basic questions, Herm grew paranoid. He responded that the Dolphins were blitzing, so the Jets receivers were being covered "man to man." Then Herm shouted, in increasing decibel levels, "MAN TO MAN! MAAAAAAN TO MAAAAAAN!!! YOU HEAR ME? MAAAAAAN TO MAAAAAAN!!!!

Huh? Why does that limit the Jets to end zone fades? Why not a slant over the middle to one of the wide receivers, or a pass underneath to Jolley prior to 4th down? Those were the kinds of plays that had been working for the Jets all day. A second or third down draw to running Cedric Houston would also have been appropriate.

Most damningly, after the game, Dolphins linebacker Zach Thomas said that the book on the Jets is that they always call fades when they get near the end zone, and that the Dolphins therefore were expecting and were ready for the plays called by the Jets.

Ultimately, the loss of yesterday's game itself is not nearly as bothersome as the fact that Herm Edwards will be back next season (and possibly thereafter), continuing to blow game after game with his inept and ignorant game mismanagement.
posted on 12/19/2005

 
Netanyahu Supporters Asleep at the Wheel

On Wednesday, regarding the Newsweek report that Kalman Gayer, an aide to Ariel Sharon said that Sharon would agree to divide Jerusalem and concede 90 percent of Judea and Samaria, I wrote:

If the Gayer comments are really a surprise (I had already read the Newsweek article and to me they were not), nobody else in the Israeli media previously picked up on them. Newsweek is not exactly an obscure publication, and I'm sure that many ordinary Israelis read the report on the Internet.

Today, Haaretz reports that Binyamin Netanyahu has the following question about the Newsweek report:

Why the heck didn't he hear about this earlier? This report appeared in the American weekly 10 days before the Channel 10 correspondent in Washington, Yaron Dekel, got on to it. Ten days and none of Netanyahu's friends in Washington and New York bothered to pick up the phone and tell him about what the adviser said? Actually, why go so far? Newsweek is also issued in Israel. It has quite a number of subscribers here. How did it happen that no one saw it, no one heard about it, no one spoke up? Most peculiar.

This is very frustrating for me. I read the Newsweek report more than two weeks ago. I wondered why Netanyahu didn't raise the matter then. While of course it's for Israelis to choose their own leaders, I very much want Netanyahu to win Monday's Likud primary. I very much want him - against what appear to be overwhelming odds - to then lead Likud to victory over Sharon's Kadima party and Amir Peretz's Labor party.

So Bibi, how can I help you in the future?
posted on 12/16/2005

 
DovBear On Munich's Critics

DovBear criticizes those (like me) who have been critical of Steven Spielberg's Munich, charging that:

Zionists of a certain age and generation think of the Arabs as cartoon villains, with greased mustaches and diabolical plans. To them, Palestinians are symbols, not people. And this tendency to simplify, to rob people of their humanity, cuts both ways: The IDF and Mossad, in their eyes, are flawless, and faultless, the just and glorious warriors.

There are close to 300 comments to DovBear's post. I don't have time to read those comments, so it's possible - likely even - that someone has already made the point that the objection to Munich is not to its sympathetic portrayal of Arabs, but its sympathy and understanding for the PLO terrorists who murdered the Israeli athletes in Munich.
posted on 12/16/2005

 
Luke Ford on Orthodox Jews and Meir Kahane

Luke Ford recently wrote:

In my experience of Orthodox Judaism, from talking to people to reading pamphlets and books, those who comment favorably on Kahane outnumber those who speak against Kahane by about five-to-one. This reflects a growing tribalism in Orthodox Judaism, the abandonment of universalistic ethics, and a hatred of the outside world.

There is no question that far too many Orthodox Jews have at least a somewhat favorable attitude toward Kahane. Some completely support him, while many others will say that Kahane was a bit too extreme but generally on the right path.

However, I certainly don't think it's remotely accurate to say that "those who comment favorably on Kahane outnumber those who speak against Kahane by about five-to-one." That certainly hasn't been my experience.

I have some friends in the Los Angeles modern Orthodox community, the one that Ford has been most exposed to, and my sense is that in LA, there is a higher ratio of pro-Kahane people than elsewhere. I still strongly doubt that they outnumber those who are anti-Kahane by 5-1.

A more serious issue raised by Ford is the pro-Kahane articles and columns that appear in the Orthodox Jewish media. While those who like Kahane write to support him, people like me, who have a negative view toward his extreme ideology, tend to express our opposition by generally calling for pragmatism and moderation and attacking those with extreme views, rather than attacking Kahane himself. That may lead to a sense that almost all of us have positive sentiments toward Kahane, when in reality there is a reluctance - justified or not - by moderates to personally go after a man who was murdered by the same terrorists who implemented the first World Trade Center attack.

I do disagree with Ford that support for Kahane relates to "hatred of the outside world." Again, most of Kahane's supporters are modern Orthodox, who, overall, are more likely to be engaged in the "outside world" than charedim. I believe support for Kahane has much more to do with hatred for Arabs than with hatred of all outsiders.
posted on 12/16/2005

 
Robert Aumann and RJJ

Following the award of the Nobel Prize in Economics (together with Thomas Schelling) to Robert Aumann, Haaretz reported that "at the yeshiva high school where he studied, he was told he was not very good in mathematics, and they advised him to choose something simpler, like auto mechanics."

Worse, Haaretz headlined its report, "School told Nobel Prize winner in economics, `You're no good at math, try auto mechanics'"

In a recent interview, Aumann said the exact opposite: "My interest in mathematics actually started in high school - the Rabbi Jacob Joseph Yeshiva on the lower east side of New York City. There was a marvelous teacher of mathematics, by the name of Joseph Gansler. The classes were very small; the high school had just started operating. He used to gather the students around his desk. What really turned me on was geometry, theorems and proofs. So all the credit belongs to Joey Gansler."

Obviously, either the Haaretz statement is completely false, or it took seriously a self-deprecating statement made by Aumann. I could not find any other report that Aumann was told at RJJ that he was not very good in math and should become an auto mechanic.

(Full disclosure, for those who are not aware: My father has been president of RJJ for the last 33 years. He may choose to say something about this matter.)
posted on 12/14/2005

 
Israeli Media Asleep at the Wheel

More than two weeks ago, a Newsweek report quoted Kalman Gayer, an advisor to Ariel Sharon, as saying that Sharon would accept a Palestinian state on 90 percent of Judea and Samaria and "and a compromise on Jerusalem" in exchange for peace.

The Newsweek report was posted on its website, and appeared on newsstands, on November 28.

Yesterday, someone working for Israel's Channel 1 came across the Newsweek article, and reported Gayer's comments as an exclusive. As a result, there has been much hoopla in Israel, with Sharon stating that he rejects Gayer's statements, Gayer claiming he was quoted out of context, and Likud attacking Sharon for his apparent willingness to divide Jerusalem.

What I don't understand is how and why, if the Gayer comments are really a surprise (I had already read the Newsweek article and to me they were not), nobody else in the Israeli media previously picked up on them. Newsweek is not exactly an obscure publication, and I'm sure that many ordinary Israelis read the report on the Internet.
posted on 12/14/2005

 
Ynet Gushes Over Stanley Greenberg

A new Ynet report that reads like a PR piece tells us that "world-renowned American pollster Stanley Greenberg, who led former Prime Minister Ehud Barak to an impressive elections win in 1999, will be arriving in Israel to meet with Labor Party Chairman Amir Peretz."

Ynet reveals that "Greenberg, in almost every case, has bet on the winning horse and is known as someone who marks the target and decisively advances towards it. In 1999 he had known for certain what was about to materialize on the eve of the elections."

The Ynet article forgets to mention that Greenberg also worked for Barak in the 2001 elections, when Ariel Sharon defeated Barak in a landslide, as well as for Al Gore in the 2000 U.S. election.

Perhaps Greenberg knows "for certain" what will materialize in Israel's 2006 elections - not an Amir Peretz victory - but as with the case with Barak's failed reelection bid and Gore's presidential campaign, decides that he needs to make a living, even if it entails a "bet on the losing horse."
posted on 12/12/2005

 
Leon Wieseltier Bashes Munich

In this week's issue of The New Republic, Leon Wieseltier (not exactly a supporter of right-wing Israelis) echoes my own criticism of Munich:

Palestinians murder, Israelis murder. Palestinians show evidence of a conscience, Israelis show evidence of a conscience. Palestinians suppress their scruples, Israelis suppress their scruples. Palestinians make little speeches about home and blood and soil, Israelis make little speeches about home and blood and soil. Palestinians kill innocents, Israelis kill innocents. All these analogies begin to look ominously like the sin of equivalence, and so it is worth pointing out that the death of innocents was an Israeli mistake but a Palestinian objective...

The film has no place in its heart for Israel... There are two kinds of Israelis in Munich: cruel Israelis with remorse and cruel Israelis without remorse...

Munich prefers a discussion of counterterrorism to a discussion of terrorism; or it thinks that they are the same discussion. This is an opinion that only people who are not responsible for the safety of other people can hold.
posted on 12/12/2005

 
David Brooks On Munich and Targeted Assassinations

Pretty good column by David Brooks in yesterday's New York Times.

Brooks properly criticizes Steven Spielberg's Munich, particularly for refusing to accept that Palestinian terrorists are "evil":

In his depiction of reality there are no people so committed to a murderous ideology that they are impervious to the sort of compromise and dialogue Spielberg puts such great faith in.

Because he will not admit the existence of evil, as it really exists, Spielberg gets reality wrong. Understandably, he doesn't want to portray Palestinian terrorists as cartoon bad guys, but he simply doesn't portray them...

In Spielberg's Middle East the only way to achieve peace is by renouncing violence. But in the real Middle East the only way to achieve peace is through military victory over the fanatics, accompanied by compromise between the reasonable elements on each side. Somebody, the Israelis or the Palestinian Authority, has to defeat Hamas and the other terrorist groups. Far from leading to a downward cycle, this kind of violence is the precondition to peace.

Brooks gets it wrong, however, on the subject of Israel's policy of targeted assassinations of terrorists, which Spielberg implicitly is strongly critical of, writing that, "over the years Israelis have learned that targeted assassinations, which are the main subject of this movie, are one of the less effective ways to fight terror... Over the past few years Israeli forces have used arrests, intelligence work, the security fence and, at times, targeted assassinations to defeat the second intifada."

Brooks underestimates the role that targeted assassinations played in defeating what he calls "the second intifada" and what I call the Palestinian terror war.

In fact, especially in Gaza, more than any other anti-terror method, Israel's targeted assassinations of senior terrorists, including Hamas leaders Salah Shehadeh, Sheikh Ahmed Yassin and Abdul Aziz Rantisi created fear and discord within Hamas, prompting Hamas to tacitly agree to temporarily stop suicide bombings.
posted on 12/12/2005

 
Mofaz's Defection: A Blessing In Disguise?

In a post a few weeks ago, referring to blistering attacks by Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz and Foreign Minister Sylvan Shalom - then candidates in the December 19 primary for Likud leader - against Binyamin Netanyahu, the frontrunner in the primary, I wrote:

How will Mofaz and Shalom campaign for Netanyahu after saying these things?

Perhaps the answer is that they won't. It's entirely possible that if Netanyahu wins the primary, Mofaz, Shalom, or both could also bolt to Sharon's party.

Not bothering to even wait for the primary, yesterday Mofaz bolted to Kadima following Friday's polls that gave him little chance of winning the Likud primary.

Mofaz made his move a few days after finally criticizing Sharon's move to the left, and around the time letters from him to Likud's 130,000 members, in which he promised to stay in the Likud, arrived in the mail.

While today's polls indicate that the Mofaz defection has had little impact at the polls, I believe that it will ultimately be a positive event for Likud.

For one thing, Mofaz's move leaves Netanyahu and Shalom as the only viable candidates in the primary. Thus, there will almost certainly not be a second-round runoff. The Likud can therefore finally begin its election campaign early next week.

Mofaz was especially close to Sharon, and only got around to attacking Sharon last week. He likely would not have been an asset to Likud in its election campaign. Netanyahu, in contrast, will (assuming he wins) attack Sharon very strongly, and while those attacks may not be portrayed positively by the Israeli media, they will resonate with many traditional Likud voters.

Furthermore, while some former Likud voters might view Mofaz's inclusion in Kadima as a basis to switch loyalties, an equal (if not greater) number will see Mofaz as an opportunistic political whore and will stick with Likud for that reason.

Shalom, though not really more sincere or loyal to Likud and its ideology than Mofaz, will probably be content with coming in second to Netanyahu and assisting in the Likud campaign, figuring that he can again vie for the party leadership should Likud got trounced in the March election, as all polls say it will.

While it does not look as though Kadima can be defeated, I therefore believe that Likud has a good chance of coming in second - ahead of Labor - in the general election. (In light of Likud's recent self destructiveness, I hesitate to predict that this will happen.) In that case, Likud - hopefully headed by Netanyahu - along with the right-wing parties would present a strong opposition to future territorial giveaways by Sharon, an opposition that for better or worse was missing during the period prior to Sharon's withdrawal from Gaza and northern Samaria.
posted on 12/12/2005

 
Playing to Win

1. Some Jets fans will surely lament today's 26-10 victory over an awful Raiders team. While the victory, along with another Houston Texans' meltdown (today with second left they missed a 31 yard field goal that would have sent the game into overtime), ends the Jets hopes for Reggie Bush, I'm a strong believer in winning as many games as possible, especially since I am resigned to Herm Edwards' return as head coach in 2006.

2. Before the game, the Jets announced that Curtis Martin is out for the season as a result of the knee injury he sustained in week 2. All season, I've called on the Jets to allow their backup running backs - namely Derrick Blaylock, Cedric Houston and B.J. Askew - to get some meaningful playing time. But the Jets kept handing off to Martin, despite his obvious ineffectiveness.

3. Playing mostly in the late 4th quarter, Askew - a 2003 3rd round pick who weighs 235 pounds - looked very good today. I've long called on the Jets to give the ball to Askew in short yardage situations. Instead, they've never given him a chance, either because he was another bad pick by GM Terry Bradway, or because the coaching staff always lets their young backs languish on the sidelines. Probably a combination of both.

4. Mike Nugent's first four kickoffs were horrible. Three didn't make it to the 15 yard line, while the fourth was a wobbly kick that went out of bounds.

5. Herm's terrible game management was again on display, this time late in the second quarter. With all three timeouts, the Jets started at their own 47 yard line with 40 seconds left. The first play was an 8 yard completion in bounds, but instead of immediately calling timeout, the Jets allowed an extra ten seconds to go off the clock, finally calling a timeout with only 24 seconds left. They failed to score on that drive.
posted on 12/11/2005

 
Flight 924 Shooting

Am I the only one who thinks that the shooting of Rigoberto Alpizar, the mentally ill passenger who ran off the airplane in Miami yesterday and was promptly shot dead by federal air marshals, was likely unjustified?

The Alpizar shooting sort of reminds me of the killing of Gideon Busch, a mentally ill man who in 1999 was shot at least 12 times by numerous NYPD cops because he has holding a hammer. A law school classmate of mine witnessed the Busch shooting and insisted (and testified) that it was unwarranted and unjustified.
posted on 12/08/2005

 
Wasting a Point

Very frustrating overtime loss by the Rangers to Chicago last night. The Rangers dominated the game at even strength, but their power play was abysmal. They were 0 for 9 on the power play, even blowing a two minute 5 on 3 advantage.

The Rangers can't continue to rely solely on the goaltending of Henrik Lundqvist and the scoring of Jaromir Jagr and (of late) Peter Prucha.

While the Blackhawks were an inferior opponent, tonight the Rangers play at Nashville.
posted on 12/08/2005

 
MoChassid's Foster Baby

The Jewish blogosphere can sometimes be a nasty place, so the semi-return of MoChassid is most welcome.

Clearly a man of integrity, modesty and kindness, over the last few days MoChassid has written several posts about his family's taking a 10 week old baby into their home five months ago. Today, in his latest post on the subject, he wrote, in part:

I do not have the words adequate to describe the joy that The Baby has brought to our home in the last 5 months. How do you explain your feelings when a baby smiles for the first time. Or when you get her to laugh by making goofy faces. Or when she wakes up in the morning and coos for 15 or 20 minutes before she realizes she's hungry. Or when she clutches your finger when you feed her? How do you explain what it means when your kids fight over who gets to hold or feed her (last Shabbos as we were sitting down for Kiddush, my younger daughter said, "I call her for after washing!"), how they fawn over her and love her. Who could ever have imagined that at age 50 I get to help raise the cutest little neshama that you can imagine. I get to see her every development. And, with age, I appreciate each and every step, perhaps more than I did with my own kids when I was younger and more foolish.

And what are the costs? So we wake up once or twice in the middle of the night. Big deal. I get right back to sleep. So we don't go out as frequently? We were never big out-goers. There is no sacrifice at all. We are the beneficiaries. That is the truth.

Thanks to MoChassid for returning - at least temporarily - to our ranks to offer us his inspiring message of selflessness. We are the beneficiaries. That is the truth.
posted on 12/07/2005

 
Spielberg on Saving Private Ryan in Time Magazine

(The following is satirical based on this week's Time magazine interview report about Steven Spielberg.)

Saving Private Ryan focuses on the increasingly troubled mind of Captain John H. Miller, leader of the U.S. army mission to retrieve Private James Ryan, whose three brothers had been recently killed in combat. "You are assigned a mission, and you do it because you believe in the mission, but there is something about killing people at close range that is excruciating," says Spielberg. "Perhaps the Nazis are leading double lives. But they are, many of them, reasonable and civilized too." Killing them, he says, has unintended consequences. "It's bound to try a man's soul, so it was very important to me to show Miller struggling to keep his soul intact."

We don't demonize our targets," Spielberg added. "They're individuals. They have families."

Indeed, there is an entirely fictional scene in the movie in which Miller and his German opposite number meet and talk calmly, with the latter getting a chance to make his case for the creation of Nazi Aryan world domination. That scene means everything to screenwriter Tony Kushner and Spielberg. "The only thing that's going to solve this is rational minds, a lot of sitting down and talking until you're blue in the gills," says Spielberg. Without that exchange, "I would have been making a Charles Bronson movie—good guys vs. bad guys and Americans killing Germans without any context. And I was never going to make that picture."
posted on 12/07/2005

 
Haaretz Doesn't Like Spielberg Film Either

Despite the statements from director Steven Spielberg and screenwriter Tony Kushner that clearly indicate that Munich offers moral equivalence between terrorists who kill civilians and soldiers (and intelligence agents) who kill those terrorists, some have taken the position that it is premature to criticize Spielberg and the film before seeing it.

For those doubters, a review in Haaretz - not exactly a hotbed of right-wing/anti-Palestinian propaganda - should lead to an understanding that it's not just paranoid ultra-Zionists who are going to be offended by the film.

As the Haaretz piece states:

Israelis don't speak to one another the way Spielberg thinks they do ... nor do they behave the way in which he portrays them as behaving. And most of them don't have significant doubts regarding the Israeli government's decision to hunt and assassinate the perpetrators of the massacre at the Munich Olympics.

It might be a discussion worthy of some debate, but the debate provoked by this film is too simplistic and righteous for Israelis to have any interest in dealing with it...

The movie was "inspired" by the story, as the producers tell us at its onset, but does not stick to it faithfully. The book upon which it was based, Revenge, is highly controversial, and one can't expect the film to draw the correct conclusions when the historical line from which it is drawn is flawed.

In conclusion, the Haaretz article says that "Hollywood filmmakers may not be best suited to deal with such heated matters. They should stick to their own stories."
posted on 12/07/2005

 
Good Jews Love Terrorists

This week's Time magazine interview with Steven Spielberg about Munich, Spielberg's new movie, states that:

There is an entirely fictional scene in the movie in which Avner and his Palestinian opposite number meet and talk calmly, with the latter getting a chance to make his case for the creation of a homeland for his people. That scene means everything to Kushner and Spielberg. 'The only thing that's going to solve this is rational minds, a lot of sitting down and talking until you're blue in the gills,' says Spielberg.

How original.

In Golda's Balcony, the recent Broadway play about pre-state Zionist leader and Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir, there is an entirely fictional scene in which Meir laments that Palestinians do not also have a homeland.

Of course, in real life Meir rejected any territorial concessions to Palestinians and even rejected the notion of a Palestinian people, but art is art and Jews must be "humanized" to love his or her enemy.

And let's not forget Victory at Entebbe, one of the films about the IDF's heroic rescue of 103 hostages of an Air France flight hijacked by Palestinian and German terrorists. In that film, there is an entirely fictional scene in which mission commander Yoni Netanyahu, in preparation for the raid in which he lost his life, expresses sympathy for terrorists and for the Palestinian cause.

Of course, in real life, Netanyahu, just like his father and his younger bother Binyamin, was a supporter of the Herut ideology and wrote, in Self Portrait Of A Hero: The Letters of Jonathan Netanyahu: "the Arabs haven`t abandoned their basic aim of destroying the State; but the self-delusion and self-deception that have always plagued the Jews are at work again."

But don't complain. After all, how could Yoni be "humanized" if he harbored hatred toward nice Palestinian hijackers?

And let's not forget Voyage of Terror: The Achille Lauro Affair, about the hijacking of a cruise ship by Palestinian terrorists and the murder by those terrorists of Leon Klinghoffer, a Jewish New Yorker who was shot in the head, his wheelchair-bound body thrown overboard. In an entirely fictional scene, Marilyn Klinghoffer, Leon`s wife, expresses sympathy and even understanding for the PLO`s terror against civilians.

After Marilyn showed her humanity by loving her husband's murderer, I sure felt sympathy for her and poor Leon!

What's that, you say? In real life Marilyn and her children have battled for the PLO for two decades? Please, be quiet, don't take away their humanity.

I have a few other great ideas for upcoming films:

- The Koby Mandell Story: In 2001, Koby and his friend Yosef Ish Ran, both 13, were brutally stoned to death while hiking around Tekoa, their Gush Etzion community. How about an entirely fictional scene, in which just before Koby and Yosef were stoned to death, Koby, Yosef and the Palestinian terrorists meet and talk calmly, with the latter getting a chance to make their case for the creation of a homeland for their people? As Steve Spielberg says, the only thing that's going to solve this is rational minds, a lot of sitting down and talking until you're blue in the gills.

- Maalot: In 1974, PLO terrorists held 100 schoolchildren and their teachers hostage, and ultimately sprayed the kids with machine-gun fire. 26 people (21 of whom were students) were murdered, 66 others were wounded.

Boring! How about an entirely fictional scene, in which the schoolchildren and the PLO terrorists meet and talk calmly, with the latter getting a chance to make their case for the creation of a homeland for their people?

- Let's Roll - The Story of Flight 93: On September 11, 2001, after his flight was hijacked, learning that three other airplanes had already been crashed into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, Todd Beamer shouted "let's roll" as he and other passengers rolled a food cart at the terrorists...

Whatever, you know the rest. Aren't we all sick of the same old boring 9/11 story? What's needed is an entirely fictional scene, in which Beamer and the hijackers meet and talk calmly over some leftover coffee and tea from the food cart, with the latter getting a chance to make their case for the creation of world domination by Osama bin Laden.

After all, the only thing that's going to solve this is rational minds, a lot of sitting down and talking until you're blue in the gills.

Gotta go and ask screenwriter Robert Avrech if he thinks any of my movie ideas will have a shot of making me the next Spielberg.
posted on 12/07/2005

 
Same Old Omar

After the season, Baseball America listed each team's top ten prospects. For the Mets, the top four prospects were Lastings Milledge, Yusmeiro Petit, Gaby Hernandez and Mike Jacobs.

Petit and Jacobs were traded to the Marlins for 33 year old Carlos Delgado, while Hernandez (and another prospect to be named) was traded to the Marlins for Paul Lo Duca, also 33.

Trading three of your top four prospects for Delgado and Lo Duca, both high-salaried players in their 30's, is crazy. Lo Duca is not bad, but appears to be starting the inevitable downslide that happens to all catchers in their 30's. Already, Lo Duca cannot throw runners out, with 78 percent of runners stealing bases off of him.

The Mets will also give up their first round pick to the Phillies as compensation for signing Billy Wagner.

Bottom line: The Mets will be a very old and expensive team in 2008 and beyond. While on paper they look good for '06 and '07, with Willie Randolph managing, even with the National League's highest payroll a World Series is quite unlikely.
posted on 12/06/2005

 
Same Old Herm

It's getting boring writing each week about the Jets' increasingly sorry state. Here are quick thoughts on Sunday's loss to New England:

1. The playcalling on both sides of the ball late in the second quarter demonstrated the ineptitude of the Jets' coaching staff. Behind 3-0 with 3rd and 5 at the Patriots 20 (after a sack and fumble that was called back due to offsetting penalties), the Jets handed the ball off to Curtis Martin, who ran straight up the middle for no gain. After the game, Herm Edwards admitted that he was afraid that if a pass was called it would result in a sack, so he decided to "take the points."

Herm always "takes the points" and plays to lose in these types of situations. With the Jets going nowhere, the failure to even try for a touchdown is pathetic.

2. On the ensuing drive by the Patriots, which started with a minute left in the first half, the Jets played a zone defense, with seven defensive backs. Tom Brady had all the time he could ever ask for to pick apart the Jets secondary. The Jets were fortunate that New England didn't score a touchdown; instead they settled for a short field goal.

3. That drive got a boost because Mike Nugent's kickoff was very short, to the 25 yard line. Nugent's other kickoff only went to the 15. His 38 yard field goal was low and wobbly.

Bottom line: Nugent looks like he has an average leg at best, hardly warranting a high second round draft pick.

4. Quoting Herm, CBS commentator Randy Cross said that any Jets drive that ends in a kick is a successful drive. By that standard, the Jets did great on Sunday, since in addition to Nugent's field goal, Ben Graham punted six times.

Presumably, Edwards and Cross are unaware that punting the ball does not result in points. In QB Brooks Bollinger's four road starts, the Jets have scored a combined total of nine points, an average of 2.25 points per game.

5. In his postgame press conference, Herm does said Bollinger is doing the best he can. While I'm not a big Bollinger fan, that's an unfair insult to Bollinger. If the Jets would open up their offense in the first half of games and play for touchdowns rather than punts and an occasional field goal, Bollinger could be fairly evaluated. Instead, he's still being handcuffed and shown little confidence by the coaching staff.

6. Bollinger threw one nice pass to Justin McCareins in the end zone. The ball was a yard or two overthrown, but McCareins didn't even make an effort to catch it. McCareins, who was acquired for a high second round pick prior to the 2004 draft, has been completely listless and a huge disappointment, another of GM Terry Bradway's failed acquisitions.
posted on 12/06/2005

 
NY1 Covers Everything Except Hockey

NY1 obsessively covers everything and anything that goes on in New York City. Everything and anything, that is, except for hockey, particularly the New York Rangers.

Last night, for the first time in a long time, I watched NY1's Sports on 1 show, which appears from 11:30-12:30.

The host Tom McDonald, mentioned that Jason Diamos, who covers hockey for the New York Times, would appear as his guest. McDonald then admitted that the show rarely covers hockey and even said that he isn't much of a hockey fan, and that he doubted that more than a few New York sports fans could name five players on the Rangers.

When Diamos appeared, McDonald displayed incredible ignorance. He was only vaguely aware of the 15 round shootout in which the Rangers defeated the Washington Caps ten days ago. He was unfamiliar with Marek Malik, the Rangers' defenseman who very improbably scored the winning goal in the shootout. He referred to Martin Rucinsky, a Rangers forward, as an enforcer type player whose injury made the team soft, not understanding that the Rucinsky injury actually made the Rangers more offensively inept. He said that he liked the new rules but then demonstrated ignorance about those rules.

For whatever reason, many sports fans have less interest in the NHL than MLB, the NFL or the NBA. That's their prerogative, but as the host of a nightly televised sports show, McDonald's disinterest or complete lack of even basic knowledge is completely unprofessional.

Fortunately, I rarely watch Sports on 1, and for years I haven't listened to WFAN's Mike Francesa/Chris Russo show. Francesa and Russo are even worse than McDonald, because while they concede having little interest in hockey, that does not stop them from expressing their opinions. They used to serve as supporters of ex-Rangers GM Neil Smith despite having no understanding of the merits of Smith's personnel moves, and most memorably, when the Rangers acquired Mark Messier in 1991, they described Messier as a low-scoring player whose main talents were leadership and toughness. Messier ultimately retired with 1887 career points, second only to Wayne Gretzky.
posted on 12/06/2005

 
Future Presentations

Work and personal requirements, along with a desire to make it to Madison Square Garden in time for tonight's opening faceoff, will probably prevent me from posting today. In the next couple of days, I hope to post my thoughts about the latest Jets loss (same old Herm), the latest Mets trade (same old Omar), the latest in the Slifkin controversy (disturbing, confusing and vague), and Rabbi Yitzchok Adlerstein's latest Cross-Currents post (a refreshingly candid and interesting analysis).
posted on 12/05/2005

 
Steven Spielberg's Moral Equivalence

Steven Spielberg expresses pride in an interview with Time magazine that Munich - his new film about the murder of 11 Israeli athletes at the 1972 Olympics by Palestinian and German terrorists - doesn't "demonize" either Israelis or Palestinians.

"We don't demonize our targets," Spielberg said. "They're individuals. They have families."

Perhaps one of these days Spielberg will direct a film about 9/11, and make sure not to demonize either the terrorists hijacking the four planes or the passengers on those planes and those in the World Trade Center. After all, they're all individuals. They all have families.

In July, I wrote a column in the Jewish Press criticizing Spielberg in more detail.
posted on 12/04/2005

 
Oslo and Iraq

During the Oslo process, I was angered and outraged by the lack of integrity of those on the political left who insisted on support for continued concessions to Yasser Arafat and the PLO, even as suicide bombings became frequent and Arafat took no action against Hamas, instead shielding their leaders from the IDF. It was obvious to me that the Oslo supporters simply could not accept and admit that their (perhaps) noble experiment had been a terrible failure.

While the analogy is not a perfect one, something similar is now happening with respect to the U.S. occupation of Iraq. Most of those who supported the invasion and occupation refuse to acknowledge how disastrous the situation has become. U.S. soldiers are being sent on one long tour of duty after another, with higher and higher chances of returning dead or seriously wounded.

I am not calling for a withdrawal from Iraq. What I am calling for is for the Bush Administration to publicly take responsibility for the current fiasco, and to articulate to American citizens what its goals in Iraq are and how it intends to reach those goals.

Until President Bush admits the mistakes that have resulted in so many dead and maimed American soldiers, those who initially supported the Iraq war have a moral duty to criticize him. As difficult as it may be to find oneself appearing to be on the same side as the anti-war/anti-U.S./anti-Israel extremists, our obligations to the soldiers protecting this country require us to speak candidly about our government's failings toward those soldiers.
posted on 12/04/2005

 
Rethinking The Internet Ban

In a post two months ago, I strongly criticized the Lakewood internet ban, particularly the threat of expulsion from school of children whose parents are caught with Internet access.

I haven't changed my position on the ban, but have been giving thought as to what the proper approach of more moderate religious Jews should be.

It's easy to say that one should watch what his children reads online, and should put in parental safeguards to ensure that objectionable sites cannot be accessed.

Alas, unlike even television, it's not so simple.

This morning, I was reading Ynet, the Israeli news site affiliated with leading Israeli newspaper Yediot Ahronot.

On the home page, there's a long feature about Denmark's ambassador to Israel, with a picture of the ambassador and his gay partner. The headline of the piece then informs us that the ambassador "slept with his boyfriend on their first date."

Presumably, most observant Jews - and probably most secular people who support gay rights - would not want their children to read an article like this.

But is there a realistic way to allow children even limited Internet access while avoiding this type of material?

I don't claim to know the answer. I do know that instead of bans and threats, this question is what people should focus on.
posted on 11/30/2005

 
God, Judea and Samaria

A common argument against ceding disputed territory is that to do so would be "spitting in God's face." After all, in 1967, God gave Israel the gift of possession of those areas.

While I tend to be a rationalist, when it comes to the Six Day War, I cannot help but see divine intervention. The scope of Israel's victory, and the manner in which Jewish history changed literally overnight, would appear to be as great a miracle as the one that is celebrated each year on the holiday of Purim.

Nevertheless, I find the argument that territorial compromise is inherently insulting to God to be off base.

I do not intend to be provocative and certainly do not intend to invoke God's wrath when I write that if God truly would be angered by territorial compromise, then He is at fault for the circumstances under which Israel obtained the Old City of Jerusalem, Judea, Samaria, Gaza, the Golan and the Sinai.

For almost two millennia, the Land of Israel was mostly empty. Then, around the time the Zionist movement began to flourish, Arabs began moving into the Land of Israel.

By the time Israel was formed in 1948, there were more Arabs than Jews living in the Land of Israel. Worse, six million Jews had been murdered in the Holocaust, decimating European Judaism and leaving only around 13 million Jews in the world.

Israel was a tiny country surrounded by enemies and by the sea.

In the 1950's, Arab expulsion of Sephardic Jews and the immigration of most of those Sephardim to Israel shifted the demographic balance in Israel's favor. So did the fact that several hundred thousand Arabs left the Land of Israel during the 1948-49 War of Independence.

However, the "refugee" issue and Israel's formation resulted in nationalism among Arabs living in Judea, Samaria and Gaza, who started referring to themselves as "Palestinians."

When Israel won the Six Day War, the territories it liberated came with the "gift" of around 1.5 million Arabs hostile to it, around 1.4 million more than a century earlier.

Moreover, feeling guilt pangs over their own colonialist histories, Europeans powers such as France and Britain deemed Israel's possession of these areas as illegitimate and supported Arab states and the Soviet bloc in demanding Israel's withdrawal.

At first, there was little expectation that Israel could retain the land for more than a few weeks. But when the U.S. took the position that Israel should not have to cede the territories without a peace agreement, Israel annexed the eastern section of Jerusalem and slowly began to settle Judea, beginning with the Gush Etzion settlements that Jordan had destroyed in 1948.

The U.S. always opposed such settlement, but Arab intransigence created a diplomatic vacuum and allowed Israel a chance to settle more and more of Judea. When Menachem Begin's Likud party was elected in 1977, settlement in Samaria commenced.

Eventually, Arabs changed their approach by agreeing to participate in a peace process in Madrid in 1991. As a result, opposition to settlement - including by America - became much more strident. No Israeli government has formed any new settlements since Madrid.

Most now estimate that 3.5 million Arabs live in Jerusalem, Judea, Samaria and Gaza, in addition to the more than one million Arab citizens of Israel. Some have challenged this figure, arguing that "only" 2.5 million to 3 million Arabs live in Jerusalem Judea, Samaria and Gaza.

In any event, it is clear that even after the Six Day War, Israel remains diplomatically and politically weak, reliant on U.S. support to avoid international isolation. It is treated with hostility by most of the world.

The gift of Jerusalem, Judea, Samaria and Gaza came with a demographic timebomb of millions of Arabs. Decades before 1967, "transferring" (or "resettling") these Arabs might have been a possibility. But since the '50's, transfer has been deemed to be akin to a war crime.

The bottom line is that if God is insistent on retention of all of the land Israel captured in 1967, He should have given this land to Israel at a time when there were more Jews in the world, fewer Arabs on the land, a different attitude on the part of the international community toward resettlement of people who lose a war of aggression, and few if any media members closely chronicling everything that happens in the Land of Israel.

As great a miracle as the Six Day War's outcome was and is, I therefore reject the notion that ceding territory is an insult to God. The gifts of Jerusalem, Judea, Samaria, Gaza, Sinai and the Golan came together with very serious problems.

It's up to those of us on earth to balance the gifts with the problems to create the optimal conditions for a secure Israel on as much territory as possible with as few Arabs on that territory as possible.
posted on 11/29/2005

 
Mets Stupidity

Mets executive Jeff Wilpon, the man who brought us Victor Zambrano in exchange for Scott Kazmir, kept his mouth shut for about a year. But he's back now, telling Bob Klapisch in today's Bergen Record, "We want to create something exciting on the field instead of waiting for the minor-leaguers to produce."

Nice job, Jeff. At best, this eliminates any leverage that GM Omar Minaya might have had with the Red Sox in negotiations for Manny Ramirez. Mets top prospect Lastings Milledge, who is expected to be ready for the majors either in mid-2006 or in 2007, is all but a goner. Last week, Mets top pitching prospect Yusmiero Petit was sent off to Florida as part of the Carlos Delgado trade.

With Wilpon's attitude (one that clearly is shared by his idiot father, Mets owner Fred), it's a surprise that the Mets "waited" for minor-leaguers like David Wright "to produce."

Of course, in Wright's defense, he made it to the majors at the age of 21, much sooner than anyone projected and apparently too quick for the Mets to give him away for, say, Sammy Sosa, the object of last year's Minaya obsession.

The Mets are now emulating the approach of the Yankees of the 1980's, trading all of their prospects for overpaid egomaniacs. Those Yankees teams underachieved, while the Mets were perennial contenders.

Only when the Yankees let their minor leaguers develop, giving them a core group of (then) cheap players like Bernie Williams, Mariano Rivera, Andy Petite, Derek Jeter and Jorge Posada did they turn the tide.

For a little while, the Mets also looked to be in the right direction, but no longer.
posted on 11/29/2005

 
G-d and Israel

Originally posted on May 12, 2003, before anyone read this blog.

This past shabbos, I was arguing about Israel with someone outside of a shul in the Upper West Side. I became a relative left-winger, because I argued that Israel must be open to territorial compromise for real peace, and cannot ignore the diplomatic and demographic realities it faces.

When I mentioned these realities, the other fellow asked me whether "God has anything to do with" the choices Israel should make. I replied that He does not.

I explained that all of us must make what we believe to be the correct choices. While faith in God is important, we cannot rely on God to avoid making rational, difficult decisions. A person who is ill must not rely on God to cure him, though of course prayer is appropriate and important. Similarly, 1900 years ago, it was a mistake to rely on God to defeat the Roman Empire and end the brutal Roman occupation of Israel. Today, divisiveness among Jews is not all that different from those times, and it would be a mistake to rely on God to save Israel from its challenges.

That does not mean we should not thank God for the miracle of the State of Israel, and pray that Israel and its people are secure. But it does mean that political and military decisions must be made based upon rational considerations, not on an assumption (as distinguished from the hope) of divine intervention.
posted on 11/28/2005

 
Rangers

26 games into the season, the Rangers are a shocking 16-7-3, their best start in a decade.

The Rangers latest victory came on Saturday night, in a 15 round shootout that finally ended when defenseman Marek Malik improbably beat Capitals goalie Olaf Kolzig.

I still don't like the shootout and found the 15 rounds to be more tedious than exciting. Of course, I was pleased with another win.

While the Rangers have been winning, their two glaring weaknesses have been the lack of an effective offensive defenseman - especially on the power play - and the lack of a second scoring line, particularly since Martin Rucinsky was injured.

Rucinsky will probably be back soon, but with the Rangers playing so well, the question is whether they should look to upgrade their roster via trade. They have around $4 million of salary cap space if they decide to make a move.

New York Post writer Larry Brooks has called upon the Rangers to look into acquiring Anaheim right-wing Petr Sykora and bringing back longtime Ranger defenseman Brian Leetch, now with the Bruins.

Any move would risk messing with the Rangers chemistry and youth movement, but I think Sykora and Leetch would both be great fits if the price is reasonable.

The Rangers top line and goaltending have been good enough that players like Leetch and Sykora could make them into real contenders. Both have won the Stanley Cup and Sykora almost won a second with the Mighty Ducks, who lost to the Devils in 7 games in the 2003 Cup. The Rangers are reminding many of the 2002-03 Ducks.

If Sykora is available for less than a first round draft pick, I'd trade for him. Sykora would not displace young Ranger forwards like Blair Betts, Jed Ortmeyer or Dominic Moore. Petr Prucha also would probably still remain on the roster. If Sykora's arrival meant that underachieving Marcel Hossa was sent down, there's nothing wrong with that. Youth should not automatically guarantee a roster spot.

Similarly, Leetch would take ice time from Tom Poti - who has been a huge disappointment since being acquired a few years ago from Edmonton for Mike York - and rookie defenseman Maxim Kondratiev. Kondratiev, who is 22 and was acquired from Toronto as part of the Leetch trade, has been rather shaky and might benefit from some regular playing time in the minors this season. Next year, Poti will likely be gone so Kondratiev would be back in a significant role.
posted on 11/28/2005

 
Oops! Herm Did It Again

1. Whenever the Jets have a chance to win the game on offense, head coach Herm Edwards and his staff do something stupid to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

Last night, with 1:15 remaining in the 4th quarter and the Jets at the New Orleans 33, the Jets called a draw play to Curtis Martin, despite the fact that in the second half, Martin and the running game were completely ineffective, while QB Brooks Bollinger kept finding open receivers over the middle.

Predictably, Martin was stopped for a loss, the next play was unnecessarily hurried resulting in a botched shotgun snap, and on 3rd down, the Jets completed a four yard pass, setting up a long field goal attempt.

2. Herm's conservative playcalling was not limited to the final drive. Despite being inside the Saints 35 yard line seven times last night, the Jets scored only 19 points, kicking four field goals, missing the potential game winning kick, punting once, and scoring just one touchdown, giving them a total of one touchdown in their last three games.

Herm cannot be blamed for Laveranues Coles' failure to maintain control of Bollinger's perfect late 2nd quarter pass to the end zone which resulted in the Jets third field goal. But in the second half, the Jets called for several draws to Martin in passing situations as well as a QB draw by Bollinger, none of which succeeded.

3. On the Jets next to last drive, they were in field goal range but on 3rd down, facing a blitz, Bollinger threw the ball away and was called for an intentional grounding penalty, taking the Jets out of field goal range and forcing them to punt. The penalty call was a terrible one, as the ESPN announcers immediately explained.

After the game, Bollinger said about the play, according to today's Daily News: "A miscommunication. I don't know the rules. Pressure was coming, I was trying to get rid of it ... the wrong place, obviously."

Bollinger doesn't know the rules? How is it possible that a quarterback in his third season does not know the rules about intentional grounding? The answer, Jets fans know, is that the team's coaching staff is a joke.

4. It's unfair to kill Mike Nugent for missing the 53 yard field goal attempt that would have won the game for the Jets. Nevertheless, it isn't unfair to label Nugent a major disappointment. He supposedly had an extraordinarily strong leg and a calm demeanor. In fact, not only was his field goal short, so have his kickoffs, and he has missed several high-pressure kicks.

The blame for Nugent has to go to GM Terry Bradway, who appears to have overestimated Nugent's talent in drafting him high in the second round.

5. Prior to Nugent's field goal attempt, the Jets were stopped on 3rd down at the Saints 34 yard line. Once upon a time, that would have meant a 51 yard attempt, since under NFL rules the ball must be placed seven yards behind the line of scrimmage, and then must clear the end zone. But in recent years, teams have routinely moved the ball eight yards back, sometimes even nine as the Jets did last night.

Considering the Nugent's kick looked to be less than a yard short, the foolish practice of moving the ball farther back then required by the rules likely cost the Jets the game.

The only possible benefit I can see to moving the ball back more than seven yards is to reduce the chance of a blocked kick. But that only makes sense for short field goals, not on kicks like Nugent's or Doug Brien's 47 yard miss against the Steelers last season in the playoffs, which hit the crossbar.

6. Once again, the Jets defense played terrible football. The Saints offense has done little this season, but the Jets allowed them three long touchdown drives, managed just one sack and did not force any turnovers.

The Jets defense has a few injuries, but overall is fairly healthy. What exactly is the excuse for the lousy performance of the 2005 Jets defense?

7. Before the game, ESPN's announcers said that according to Herm Edwards, the Jets would make sure Curtis Martin gets 1000 yards this season, because "it would do wonders for the team's psyche."

That statement illustrates the pathetic state of the Jets and their leadership.

8. For two years, I've been disappointed that the Jets didn't give Ricky Ray more of a chance at QB. Ray, an ex-CFL MVP, was on the Jets roster in 2004 but never played. He was released after minicamp last March. Last night, Ray led the Edmonton Eskimos to the CFL Grey Cup championship and was named MVP.

9. Some Jets fans have indicated that they want the Jets to lose, so that they have a have a better chance of landing Matt Leinart or Reggie Bush in the 2006 draft. As much as I'd like to see Bush or Leinart on the Jets, I disagree with this perspective.

In the NFL more than any other sport, losing breeds more losing. If the Jets finish 2-14 or 3-13 yet keep the coaching staff, next season will be deemed a success if the Jets merely win five or six games.

In contrast to this year's Jets team, the 1999 Jets got off to a 1-6 start, but then recovered to finish 8-8. As a result, expectations were high in 2000, and the Jets got off to a 6-1 start before collapsing. But at least the 9-7 season that year was recognized as the failure that it was.

In a league with lots of parity, the difference between a 10-6 season and a 6-10 season is often coaching and the demands and expectations placed on players and staff.

10. In this regard among others, I really hope QB Chad Pennington can come back next year. If nothing else, Pennington hates to lose and demands a lot of himself, a trait that too many others on the Jets - players and coaches alike - appear to lack.
posted on 11/28/2005

 
Cal Ripken and Koby Mandell

Nice article by Sherri Mandell in this week's New York Jewish Week.

Sherri and Seth Mandell made aliyah from Maryland in 1996. In 2001, their 13 year old son Koby and his friend were murdered by Palestinian terrorists just outside their Gush Etzion community.

The Mandells set up the Koby Mandell Foundation, which helps bereaved families of terror victims.

Koby Mandell had been a big fan of the Baltimore Orioles and particularly Cal Ripken. When Ripken learned of this, he offered to help the foundation.

Sherri Mandell writes that at a recent dinner and auction in Maryland to raise money for the Koby Mandell Foundation, "Cal was the first one at the hotel and one of the last to leave that night. He lay on the floor to sign the commemorative photos."

In an era in which athletes are not expected to be anything other than self-absorbed jerks and many people refuse to make moral distinctions between terrorists and terror victims, Cal Ripken serves as a refreshing and hopeful contrast.
posted on 11/23/2005

 
Likud's Self-Destruction

On Sunday, just after confirmation that Prime Minister Sharon was leaving the Likud and setting up a new party, I posted that Likud would have to stay united and rally behind the winner of its upcoming primary.

Initial polls indicate that Likud will be decimated in the March elections, plummeting from 40 Knesset seats to between 12 and 15 seats.

It is reasonable to believe that Likud can recover at least somewhat once it chooses a leader and after Sharon's momentum subsides.

However, if what transpired today is any indication, Likud is in very big trouble.

Binyamin Netanyahu remains the front-runner in the Likud primary. Today, he was personally attacked by two challengers, Foreign Minister Sylvan Shalom and Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz.

Despite Israel's economic growth of more than 4 percent annually during Netanyahu's tenure as Finance Minister, both Mofaz and Shalom harshly criticized Netanyahu's free market economy policies. As reported today in Haaretz, Mofaz was particularly vitriolic, saying that Netanyahu "grew up with a silver spoon in his mouth" as a "cream-fed kid from Rehavia who hurt the poor." (Rehavia is an upscale Jerusalem neighborhood.)

Shalom not only joined in the attack on Netanyahu's economic views, he called Netanyahu's views on the conflict with the Palestinians "extremist."

As if that weren't bad enough, Shalom then said that Netanyahu's "term as prime minister was unsuccessful, and the public remembers that."

Keep in mind, Mofaz and Shalom are referring to a leader of their own party.

Also keep in mind that no similar attacks (or even criticism) against Sharon came from either Mofaz or Shalom.

I know primaries can be negative, but I've never of anything like this. Mofaz and Shalom are basically both saying that if Netanyahu is nominated to lead Likud, voters would be better off voting for Labor or for Sharon's party, and that Netanyahu is completely unqualified to be prime minister again. Why should anyone vote for someone whose colleague in the same political party call a failure?

Given that Netanyahu will likely indeed win the primary, there can be little doubt that the other parties will use these harsh attacks from his fellow Likud leaders in their own campaign advertisements.

Further, how will Mofaz and Shalom campaign for Netanyahu after saying these things?

Perhaps the answer is that they won't. It's entirely possible that if Netanyahu wins the primary, Mofaz, Shalom, or both could also bolt to Sharon's party, putting yet another nail in Likud's coffin.

It's too early to write Likud off, but if it continues to act self-destructively through the late December primary - and there is no reason to think it won't - Netanyahu will have to pull off a miracle to even finish in second place in the general election.
posted on 11/23/2005

 
Worst Jets Losses: Four Through One

Okay, it's about time to move onto other things, so without further ado, here are the four worst losses in the history of the New York Jets.

4. Jets lose to Pittsburgh Steelers 20-17 on January 15, 2005.

The Jets were heavy underdogs in this second round playoff game against the 15-1 Steelers. Playing with an injured shoulder that would soon be revealed to be a torn rotator cuff, QB Chad Pennington was mostly ineffective.

However, the Jets scored touchdowns on special teams and defense. First, Santana Moss returned a punt for a touchdown, tying the score at 10-10 late in the 2nd quarter. Early in the 4th quarter, Reggie Tongue intercepted a Ben Roethlisberger pass and returned it 86 yards for a touchdown.

After a Jerome Bettis fumble, the Jets had a chance to put the game away. But they meekly went three and out, running twice and throwing a short pass.

The Steelers drove down the field and scored a touchdown to tie the game.

But the Jets came back with a nice drive that took up the latter portion of the 4th quarter, setting up a 47 yard kick by Doug Brien just before the two minute warning. The kick bounced off the crossbar.

On the very next play, Roethlisberger was intercepted again and the Jets had the ball at Pittsburgh's 37. After passing for a first down at the Steelers' 24, they went into super-conservative mode, running right up the middle on first and second downs for just one yard, and then actually having Pennington kneel on third down for a two yard loss. Head coach Herm Edwards was much more concerned with running out the game clock than with moving the ball. Despite the cold weather and even though the exact same strategy failed for the Chargers and saved the Jets in the Jets' first round playoff win the previous week, Herm was content with trying a 43 yard field goal. As regulation time expired, Brien's kick went way wide to the left.

In overtime, the Jets had the ball near midfield and it briefly looked as though Brien would get a third chance. But an Anthony Becht holding penalty caused the drive to stall. Playing an overtime road game for the third straight week thanks to the idiocy of Eric Barton, the exhausted Jets defense could no longer stop the Steelers, and Pittsburgh drove downfield for the winning field goal.

After the game, Edwards praised his team for "battling" and was oblivious as to why anyone would question the 4th quarter playcalling.

3. Jets lose to Cleveland Browns 23-20 on January 3, 1987, in probably the most painful loss in team history.

After a 10-1 start, the 1986 Jets not only lost their lost five games, they were completely blown out in each of them, giving up 45 or more points in three of the five losses. They backed into the playoffs a mere shell of the exciting team that had won nine straight games earlier in the year.

But when the playoffs started, as if turning on a light switch, the Jets got right back on track. They easily defeated Kansas City in the wildcard game. In the second round against the Cleveland Browns, the Jets continued their resurgence, holding Browns QB Bernie Kosar in check. When Freeman McNeil ran for a 25 yard touchdown to give the Jets a 20-10 lead with just 4 minutes left and the Browns down to one timeout, the Jets looked sure to be headed to the AFC Championship.

The game was on shabbos, and for better or worse, I was listening to it in a park in Sunset Park, Brooklyn. I'll never forget Jets radio announcer Charley Steiner saying, "The Jets are going to Denver! The Jets are going to the AFC Championship!"

On the ensuing Browns possession, the Browns were called for a holding penalty on first down. Then, the Jets sacked Kosar, and backed the Browns up to their own 18 yard line. On the next play, Kosar's pass was incomplete. But Mark Gastineau was called for a late hit, giving the Browns 15 yards and an automatic first down. The Browns marched down the field for a touchdown with less than two minutes left.

Still, the Jets got the ball back. One first down would run out the clock and win the game. The Jets ran on first and second downs for short gains. The Browns used their last timeout after first down. After second down, the 30 second clock wound down.

On third down, coach Joe Walton called for a quarterback draw, despite the immobility of QB Ken O'Brien. O'Brien was sacked, stopping the clock for about 15 seconds. The Browns got the ball back with a minute left instead of 45 seconds left.

The Jets were called for a questionable pass interference penalty. Then Kosar hit Webster Slaugter for a long pass, setting up the tying field goal with 7 seconds left in the 4th quarter.

In overtime, the Jets offense never sustained a drive. Steiner questioned Walton's playcalling, saying that the Jets were "playing not to lose." The defense got a break when Cleveland missed a short field goal, but two minutes into the second overtime, the Browns kicked a 27 yard field goal to complete the Jets collapse.

The Jets would not play another playoff game in the Joe Walton era, which lasted three more seasons. They would not make it back to the second round of the playoffs for 12 years.

2. Jets lose to Miami Dolphins 14-0 on January 23, 1983.

After defeating both the Bengals and the Raiders on the road in the first two rounds of the 1982 playoffs, the Jets were just a win away from a trip to the Super Bowl.

There was heavy rain in Miami in the days preceding this AFC Championship game. The Jets, with Freeman McNeil, had the superior running game, but the Dolphins failed to cover the field letting it turn to mud.

As a result, neither offense was able to get much going. McNeil had huge games against both Cincinnati and Oakland, but ran for his lowest yardage of the season on the soggy and muddy field.

The lack of a running game took Jets star wide receiver Wesley Walker out of the game too. Walker was double-teamed, and caught just one pass, late in the 4th quarter.

The game was scoreless at halftime. In the 3rd quarter, A.J. Duhe intercepted a Richard Todd pass, setting up a Dolphins touchdown. In the 4th quarter, Duhe intercepted a screen pass intended for Bruce Harper and returned the interception for a touchdown. He would set an NFL playoff record with three interceptions on the day.

After the game, a furious Walt Michaels ripped into the Dolphins for the poor field conditions. On the airplane back to New York, Michaels lost his temper and continued to rail about the mud. Jets president Jim Kensil told Michaels to shut up and let it go, and the two had a verbal altercation.

In the ensuing weeks, offensive coordinator Joe Walton was interviewed for several head coaching positions. Walton did a good job of self promotion, convincing the Jets front office that he rather than Michaels was responsible for the improvement on offense in 1981 and 1982.

After the Super Bowl, Michaels was fired by Kensil and replaced by Walton. A year later, Michaels was hired by Donald Trump to be head coach of the USFL's New Jersey Generals. After the USFL folded in 1985, Michaels never coached football again.

Richard Todd and the Jets had a disappointing season under Walton in 1983. Todd was traded to the Saints after the '83 season.

The Jets would not return to the AFC Championship for 16 years. When they did, they suffered the worst loss in their history.

1. Jets lose to Denver Broncos 23-10 on January 17, 1999. Entering this game, the Jets had won 11 out of 12 games, including a second round playoff victory at home over Jacksonville. Even so, they were 6 point underdogs to the 14-2 Broncos, who were the defending Super Bowl champions and who are always very tough at Mile High Stadium, where they had won 18 straight.

Shortly after this game started, the Falcons stunned the Vikings in the NFC Championship. While the 15-1 Vikings were dominant in '98, the Falcons were a team that both the Jets and Broncos would be favored to beat.

The Jets dominated the first half, with Vinny Testaverde completing his first 13 passes and their defense shutting down Denver's potent offense. But a Keith Byars fumble deep in Denver territory, another fumble by Curtis Martin at the Denver 44, and a missed field goal by John Hall prevented the Jets from taking control of the game. The Jets finally got on the board with a field goal as the first half expired.

Midway through the 3rd quarter, the Jets blocked a Broncos punt and recovered the ball at the 1 yard line. Curtis Martin ran it in for a 10-0 Jets lead.

With Bill Belichick's defense stymieing John Elway, Shannon Sharpe and Terrell Davis, the Jets looked set for a trip to Miami, the place where they played and won in their other Super Bowl appearance 30 years earlier.

But the Broncos scored a touchdown on their next drive. It would be important for the Jets to gain the momentum back on offense. But on the ensuing kickoff, the Jets committed their third turnover of the day, fumbling the ball.

After that, the Jets could not stop Davis. He scored on a long TD run late in the 3rd quarter.

Vinny Testaverde tried to get the Jets back into the game in the 4th quarter, but he was intercepted twice, once deep in Denver territory. On the day, the Jets committed six turnovers.

In the end, this game was not the most disappointing in team history. After a great season led by Testaverde, the Jets fell short against a team that would win back-to-back Super Bowls and that was almost impossible to beat at home.

But looking back, this game was the closest the Jets have ever gotten to a second Super Bowl. They were dominating the game on both sides of the ball, but couldn't put up points on offense. Had they won, they would have faced a very beatable Falcons team in the Super Bowl. Headed by Parcells, Belichick and offensive coordinator Charlie Weis, it's reasonable to believe that the Jets would more likely than not have won the Super Bowl.

If they had, all the other disappointments in team history would be a lot less painful. The injuries to Chad Pennington, the bizarre decisions by Herm Edwards, watching Belichick and Weis win three Super Bowls in New England, Doug Brien's missed kicks - sure they'd still be frustrating, but significantly less so. Maybe Belichick would have even stayed.

There was a lot of optimism after this loss. Elway retired after the Super Bowl, and some saw the Jets as the team to beat in the AFC in 1999. Vinny Testaverde's season-ending injury ended those hopes. After '99, Parcells, Belichick and Weis were all gone. The Jets have not made it back to the AFC Championship.
posted on 11/23/2005

 
Terrible Trade

I don't have time to post in any detail, but have to go on record to express my revulsion of the Mets trading of both Mike Jacobs and top pitching prospect Yusmeiro Petit to the Marlins for Carlos Delgado.

Not only does Delgado not want to come to the Mets - he turned down the Mets offer last winter to sign with the Marlins instead - the Marlins were lucky to even get anyone to take on his contract, which had a low salary last season and pays Delgado $48 million over the next three years. For the Mets to give up two valuable players is absurd.

I'm not sure whether Jacobs could have replicated his outstanding performance, but it would have been nice to give him a chance. Certainly, Jacobs would have been a huge bargain, making near the minimum salary.

Based upon Minaya's track record, his next move will probably be to get rid of Aaron Heilman, the Mets' most pleasant surprise in '05.
posted on 11/23/2005

 
The Day I Became A Jets Fan

Following is the fifth worst loss in Jets history:

Jets lose to Buffalo Bills 31-27 on December 27, 1981.

On this day, I became a Jets fan.

Please don't misunderstand. By then, three weeks before my ninth birthday, I already was an avid - okay, an obsessive - fan of the New York Jets. I had gone with my father to two Jets games in the 1981 season, the second of which was on a schoolday, with my father coming to pick me up at school and brazenly telling the rabbi that he was taking me to a football game.

On December 27, 1981, the Jets hosted the Buffalo Bills in their first playoff game during my lifetime. The first game I went to that season was against the Bills. The Jets won 33-14.

In my parents' living room, there is a family portrait. The time on my brother's digital watch says 11:58.

The picture was taken in a studio around eight blocks from my house, on none other than December 27, 1981.

Game time was noon.

I remember my brother assuring me that I wouldn't miss a thing, that since it was a playoff game, there would be player introductions before the game that would delay kickoff.

I ran home as fast as I could.

I arrived home at 12:03. It was 7-0 Bills.

Bruce Harper had fumbled the opening kickoff, and the Bills returned it for a touchdown. Later in the 1st quarter, Wesley Walker was wide open but dropped a sure TD pass. Early in the 2nd quarter, Mark Gastineau sacked Joe Ferguson, but instead of falling on the ball, kicked it around again and again, with the Bills recovering after a loss of something like 35 yards. Before long, it was 24-0 Bills in the second quarter.

The Jets got to within 24-13, but a 4th quarter Bills touchdown made it 31-13 with ten minutes left. I understood that the Jets would fall short.

Over the next half-hour, I would learn that nothing is so simple and painless when it comes to the New York Jets.

Led by QB Richard Todd, the Jets mounted a furious comeback. First, Todd completed a touchdown pass to Bobby Jones. The Jets stopped Buffalo in three plays, and the Jets scored another touchdown with a little more than 3 minutes to go. And then the defense again stopped Buffalo in three plays. The Jets had the ball at their own 20 yard line with 2 1/2 minutes left to play.

They drove right down the field. A 29 yard pass to Mickey Shuler. On 3rd and 20, Todd completed a 26 yard pass to Derrick Gaffney.

But then on 3rd and 15, Todd was intercepted. The game was over.

But a holding penalty was called, giving the Jets an automatic first down! The Jets had first down at the Bills 11. The Shea Stadium scoreboard displayed, in huge capital letters: "WE CAN DO IT!"

Todd passed to Derrick Gaffney, who looked to be open right at the end zone. Seemingly out of nowhere, Bill Simpson intercepted the pass at the 1 yard line.

There had to be another penalty. The Jets couldn't lose. The game couldn't be over.

It was. For the first time in my life, on December 27, 1981, I experienced the pain of being a fan of the New York Jets.

Coming up: The four worst losses in New York Jets history.
posted on 11/23/2005

 
New York Rangers

After so many terrible years, I've been resisting getting my hopes up, but after tonight's game, I am now officially excited about the 2005-06 Rangers. They have definitely alleviated some of the disappointment related to all of my other sports teams, particularly the Jets.

I still hate the shootout. But if there's going to be a shootout, it's nice to win it.
posted on 11/22/2005

 
Worst Jets Losses: Ten Through Six

This morning, I posted the 20th through 11th worst losses in New York Jets history. Following are the tenth through sixth worst losses in the team's sorry history:

10. Jets lose to Carolina Panthers 26-15 on October 15, 1995. Remembered in infamy as "the Bubby Brister game," this game represents everything that was awful about the Rich Kotite era.

The Panthers, an expansion team in their first NFL season, had never won an NFL game. Late in the first half, the Jets led 12-6 and had the ball. Playing for an injured Boomer Esiason, backup QB Bubby Brister threw a shovel pass toward running back Adrian Murrell, but the pass was intercepted and returned for a touchdown by Sam Mills. Brister threw two more interceptions in the second half. Neither the Jets nor Kotite would recover from this loss.

9. Jets lose 22-17 to Buffalo Bills on November 7, 2004. Coming into this game, the Jets were 6-1 and QB Chad Pennington was having a very strong season. Late in the 1st quarter, Pennington scrambled for a first down. He got the first down, but was sandwiched by two Bills and lost the ball.

At the time, nobody had any reason to believe that the hit by linebacker London Fletcher and cornerback Nate Clements would commence another dark era for the Jets.

Pennington continued to play until the 4th quarter, but was ineffective. After the game, he described the injury as nothing major, "a charley horse, just in your shoulder." Pennington missed the next three games, and was inconsistent after coming back. Only after the season did the Jets acknowledge that Pennington had torn his rotator cuff and would have to undergo major surgery on his shoulder.

8. Jets lose 30-28 to New England Patriots on September 12, 1999.

The 1999 season opened on a warm sunny September Sunday in the New York area. Hopes for the Jets were as high as ever, after a 12-4 1998 season and a trip to the AFC Championship.

It was also the second day of Rosh Hashanah, and as the Jets opened their 1999 season, Jews were reciting the U'Nesaneh Tokef prayer, recognizing that G-d would decree, "who will live and who will die ... who will enjoy tranquility and who will suffer ... who will be degraded and who will be exalted."

The Jets season died that day, their history of degradation recurring yet again, any hopes of tranquility dashed. It happened by Achilles, specifically the rupture of the Achilles tendon of QB Vinny Testaverde.

Testaverde dove for a rare Curtis Martin fumble and in the process his foot was caught in the old awful Giants Stadium artificial turf.

Promising young running back and return man Leon Johnson was also lost for the season with a knee injury. Johnson was never effective after that injury.

The Jets actually were competitive, largely due to the performance of punter and fourth string QB Tom Tupa, who was inserted to replace Testaverde. Several questionable decisions by Bill Parcells - including two second half two-point conversion attempts, a fake field goal, and the insertion of Rick Mirer at QB - all backfired. The Jets clung to a late 4th quarter lead, but an Adam Vinatieri field goal with three seconds left gave New England the win.

The 1999 Jets lost 6 of their first 7 games before Parcells turned to third-string QB Ray Lucas. Lucas energized the team, which finished with an 8-8 record.

Alas, while Testaverde returned for the 2000 season, by then Parcells had resigned, and most of his staff (with the exception of assistant Al Groh) - including offensive coordinator Charlie Weis - had left to join defensive coordinator Bill Belichick in New England. Vinny's favorite wide receiver - Keyshawn Johnson - was also gone by 2000, having been traded to Tampa Bay.

7. Jets lose 28-24 to Miami Dolphins on November 27, 1994. With a 6-5 record, a win over Miami would put the Jets in a tie with the Dolphins atop the AFC East.

The Jets dominated the first half, taking a 24-6 lead. The Giants Stadium crowd was as loud as it has ever been for a regular season game.

In the 4th quarter, two Boomer Esiason interceptions turned the tide. Dolphins QB Dan Marino passed for a touchdown to cut the Jets lead to 24-21. Marino led the Dolphins down the field in the final minute. With the clock winding down, he made a spiking motion, as though he was going to down the ball to stop the clock for a field goal attempt to send the game into overtime. In the play that became known as "The Fake," Jets cornerback Aaron Glenn froze, and Marino completed the winning touchdown pass to Mark Ingram.

I'll never forget the long walk out of Giants Stadium to the Meadowlands parking lot. The fans were shocked, furious and resigned to endless misery.

The 1994 Jets lost the rest of their games, finishing 6-10. When the Eagles fired Rich Kotite, first year head coach Pete Carroll was fired because owner Leon Hess decided that he simply had to have Kotite to lead the Jets.

6. Jets lose 26-20 to Jacksonville Jaguars on September 25, 2005. QB Chad Pennington tore his rotator cuff when his arm was yanked from behind in the 3rd quarter. He underwent another shoulder surgery and faces a grueling rehab. It is questionable at best whether he will be an effective NFL quarterback again, let alone one that can lead his team to a Super Bowl. Backup QB Jay Fiedler also sustained a serious shoulder injury. The 2005 Jets never recovered from this loss, and the after-effects of Pennington's injury will include the Jets' bad salary cap situation becoming catastrophic, at least for 2006.

The Jets actually had a good chance to win the game late in the 4th quarter. Inexplicably, Pennington returned after the injury to Fiedler. Late in the 4th quarter, with the Jets trailing 20-17 and facing 3rd and goal from the Jaguars 8, Pennington threw over the middle into the end zone to WR Wayne Chrebet. At first, officials ruled that Chrebet made that catch for a touchdown, but replays indicated that Chrebet did not hold onto the ball and the Jets settled for a short field goal to send the game into overtime. It would be the last pass thrown by Pennington to Chrebet. In overtime, ignoring Pennington's injury, the Jets called a long pass to WR Justin McCareins. Predictably, the pass was very underthrown and intercepted, and on the ensuing drive, Jacksonville won the game.

UPDATE - 11/23: Just realized that I neglected to include the Jets MNF debacle on September 23, 1991. Against the Bears, the Jets 13-6 led late in the 4th quarter and the Bears were out of timeouts. If the Jets had fallen on the ball three times, they would have had to punt with about 20 seconds left. Instead, they handed the ball of to Blair Thomas, who fumbled on second down with a minute left. The Bears tied the game on a 4th down TD pass with one second left.

In overtime, the Jets missed a chip shot from 28 yards by Pat Leahy, and the Bears scored the winning TD.

The reason I forget about this game is because it was on a Jewish holiday, so I didn't see it.

I would rate this game as a tie for number 10.

Tomorrow: The fifth worst loss in New York Jets history.
posted on 11/22/2005