The Zionist Conspiracy |
|
|
A clandestine undertaking on behalf of Israel, the Jets and the Jews. 
|
Thursday, March 31, 2005
Terri Schiavo's Death Whatever one thinks about the debate over Terri Schiavo, now that she has passed away, all people of good will should be disgusted by Michael Schiavo's refusal to allow Terri Schiavo's parents to be with her when she died. CNN reports that the Schindlers "had begged to be with their firstborn while she drew her last breath, but ... Michael Schiavo, Terri's guardian, controlled who could visit her and when." According to Michael Schiavo's attorney, the Schindlers "were free to spend as much time as they chose with her body." West Side Stadium I'm amazed at Jets fans who are excited at the prospect of a new stadium on the West Side. As a New York City resident, I think the $600 million gift by the city and state - which will of course be picked up by taxpayers - is completely unjustified. The $720 million offered by the Jets is too low now that the area will be developed not only with the stadium/convention center, but with hi-rise residential buildings. If the MTA had solicited offers from real estate developers, it could have obtained much more than $720 million, especially in this real estate market. As a Jets fan and long-time season ticket holder, the stadium might mean that after 2008, I will no longer be able to go to games, and I'd expect many Jets season ticket holders will be unable to afford maintaining their tickets. When I first obtained the tickets, they were $25 per game, and exhibition games did not need to be purchased. Now they are $70, including the two exhibition games, meaning $700 for 8 games, or a little under $90 a ticket. Not cheap, but still affordable. With the Jets spending well over $1 billion for the stadium, it's clear that the fans - or more accurately the corporations - will ensure the stadium's profitability for the team. There is talk about charging thousands of dollars for a license giving one the right to maintain or buy season tickets. Ultimately, nobody benefits from the new stadium except Jets owner Woody Johnson. The real fans, and the taxpayers are getting screwed. For once and perhaps for the only time, the evil empire called Cablevision is right. Modern Orthodoxy On The Upper West Side Steven I. Weiss links to and quotes a post by Esther Kustanowitz on her site, in which Kustanowitz writes: As far as I can tell (without having conducted an investigation on the sexual habits of the Orthodox), the major difference between those who call themselves "Orthodox" and those who call themselves "Modern Orthodox" (at least of the Upper West Side in their 30s and 40s) has to do with sex (whether or not they're willing to have it before they're married) and food (whether or not they're willing to eat dairy and fish in non-kosher restaurants). There also may be a slight Shabbat difference, too, especially when it comes to watching Final Fours, NFL playoffs, Olympics opening ceremonies and/or World Series games. If her parenthetical caveat limits her statement to older singles in the Upper West Side (I lived there for five years but moved to Queens at 29, so missed the 30 year old minimum qualification), there's some truth in what Kustanowitz wrote, but only some. Imagine if one of the Cross-Currents bloggers tried to say something like Kustanowitz did. Wednesday, March 30, 2005
Wearing A Kippa In Israel I've also been too busy to write a cogent response to Yaron London's despicable piece in Yediot Ahronot. London defends the prevention of any men wearing a kippa from attending a public event in Eilat at which Prime Minister Sharon spoke. London writes that "the kippa is no longer an innocent head covering, but a warning sign, presumably because it identifies the wearer as a potential danger." He compares the barring of Orthodox Jewish men from a public event attended by Sharon to racial profiling, which he says is "fair enough, if not very nice." In an unintentional statement both of his hypocrisy and his bigotry, London wrote: "Liberals we may be, but in the real world we cannot avoid quick judgments based on assumptions." As anyone who lives in America knows, London's analogy to racial profiling here is totally off-base. Whatever one thinks of the practice - which particularly in New Jersey resulted in much litigation - it never legally allows the barring of every member of a particular group from a public event; even private persons may not discriminate under most circumstances, pursuant to Supreme Court decisions. If some observant Jews with a kippa were barred based on some evidence that they pose a security threat, or even if all were subjected to extra security checks, the practice might be defensible. But preventing all observant Jewish men from attending a public event is a terrible travesty. If London were an American columnist who called for barring all blacks or all Muslims from public events, he would be fired. If he were an Israeli calling for all Arabs to be barred from public events, he would be investigated for incitement. Since he is a "liberal" calling only for all religiously observant Jews to be barred, he remains in good (perhaps better) standing among Israel's media elite. Traitor Brooks Blogger has been down for much of the last day, so I was unable to immediately post about David Brooks's column in yesterday's New York Times. I'm too busy to post in detail now, but will offer quick thoughts. Brooks writes that he has been a lifelong Mets fan, and invokes the 1969 and 1986 seasons of glory. He also writes that "during the 1970's" the Mets gave him "some of the worst years of [his] life." That claim is a bit dubious, since from 1970-1976, the Mets had a winning record in each season except 1974, and almost stole the World Series in '73. In any event, Brooks lives in the DC area now, and is "contemplating the uncontemplatable: that I will switch my allegiance from the beloved Mets to the new team of my adopted town. I will become a fan of the Washington Nationals." Brooks writes that "I have endured this spiritual crisis because the Mets, with all their big-money signings, have come to seem less like darlings. Perhaps the young players José Reyes and David Wright will rekindle the flame, but I go into the season adrift and uncertain, tempted by my lowdown cheating heart, caught between a lifetime love and an enticing new fling." In other words, if the Mets hadn't sucked for the last four seasons, Brooks might not be trading them in for the new Washington Nationals. From a rational perspective, there is no real reason to care much whether the Mets win or lose, and certainly not whether someone switches his allegiance to another team. From the perspective of an avid sports fan, Brooks is a traitor. And as a traitor, he is due the death penalty. Not the real one, but capital punishment removing him from the world of Mets fans. There is nothing wrong with a Mets fan living in DC being excited at the arrival of the Nationals, but dropping the Mets - especially when they've been way down - erases Brooks's entire history as a purported Mets fan. His baseball team has never won a World Series and he has never suffered through the dark days of Jeff Torborg, Art Howe, Dallas Green, and ... lest we forget ... Joe Torre, who managed the Mets during the dismal 1977-1981 seasons. His status as a Mets fan is ended, and he is to be placed on the Mets Ineligible List, never to be eligible for reinstatement. Monday, March 28, 2005
Willie Randolph: Moronic Fool Willie Randolph is planning to bat David Wright eighth. Not light-hitting Doug Mientkiewicz or strikeout prone Mike Cameron, but Wright. Willie's rationale: "You have to pay your dues." After Wright batted .293 with 14 homers, 40 RBIs, and 17 doubles in just 263 at bats last year, Randolph plans to demote him to the No. 8 hole, in front of the pitcher, where he will get nothing to hit. Perhaps Randolph views the No. 8 spot as akin to hitting ninth in the AL. But the No. 9 hitter in the AL is hitting in front of the leadoff man, and therefore has the ability to develop and be productive. I am unhappy with a number of recent personnel moves by Randolph and GM Omar Minaya, but this is complete idiocy. I also am completely fed up with the incompetence of the leadership of the teams I waste my time following and rooting for. The Rangers have been pathetic for years, with this lockout season their best since 96-97. The Jets are coached by someone who chants slogans but is deficient in game management and common football sense. The Nets had a very good team that was dismantled by ownership. The Mets have been awful, were hoped to be on the right track, but apparently will choose to waste the talent of one of their potential stars. Ron Jaworski: Ignorant Fool Former Eagles QB Ron Jaworski must have taken one hit too many during his playing career. On his web site, Jaworski puts the Jets as his top "team to watch" in 2005. Jaworski's reasoning is: Hiring Scott Linehan as the new offensive coordinator is significant. In Minnesota, Linehan cultivated a big-play, quick-strike offense. He's got the talent to work with in New York to have that same kind of offense. With Chad Pennington at quarterback, Curtis Martin in the backfield and receivers like Santana Moss and Justin McCareins, the Jets have the tools. Now they need the philosophy. Linehan will provide that. Interesting stuff. Only problem is that the Jets definitely did not hire Linehan as their new OC. They hired Mike Heimerdinger, formerly of the Tennessee Titans. It's not clear when Jaworski posted the blurb about the Jets, but apparently it has been on his site (and remained uncorrected) for at least a few weeks. Does an ignoramus like Jaworski actually get paid by ESPN to offer his opinions? Thursday, March 24, 2005
Bizarro World In just about every newspaper in the world, a column about Israel that expresses views to the right of Ariel Sharon would be deemed quite hawkish. Yet this week in the Jewish Press, two of the three letters criticized me for being too soft in my column last week, while a third praised me for my "courage" and the Jewish Press "for providing a forum" for my views. Anyway, here are the three letters, followed by my response: The Jewish Press is to be commended for publishing Joseph Schick’s well-reasoned op-ed "Can One Be Right Wing And Pragmatic?" (March 18). His article represents a refreshing change from the “Israel is about to be destroyed” scenario constantly posited by so many right-wingers here and in Israel. One can be an unreconstructed hawk on Israel and still be realistic enough to realize that it’s ludicrous at this point in time to be talking about “expelling all the Arabs” or insisting that “there’s no such thing as a Palestinian people” (historically speaking, that’s correct, but we lost that public relations battle years ago). I admire Mr. Schick for his courage in stating convictions that no doubt will invite derision from extremists, and I thank The Jewish Press for providing a forum for views with which many of its readers undoubtedly disagree. Yitzchak Cates, New York, NY Although I always appreciate reading Joseph Schick`s thoughtful views on the Middle East, he falls prey to his own arguments in his March 18 op-ed. Schick says he disagrees with Prime Minister Sharon`s "disengagement" plan because he thinks it is a faulty strategy to bring about his (Sharon`s) goals "to retain all of Jerusalem`s Old City, part of the Jordan Valley, and more than the four percent of Judea and Samaria that Israel was left with under the Clinton Plan." But he is sharply critical of those opposed to any territorial concessions and who lack a "recognition that Israel will have to give up territory but must fight hard to keep whatever it can." "There is no understanding," he says, "that both Oslo and Barak`s concessions greatly damaged Israel`s negotiating position, and that Sharon`s motivation is to preserve more than the four percent Israel would have kept had Arafat accepted the Clinton Plan." Why does Schick think that absolutist opposition at home does not strengthen Sharon`s hand internationally and tend to lead to fewer Israeli concessions over time? Isn`t that the flip side of Schick`s acknowledgment that Oslo and Barak`s unilateral concessions undermined Israel`s negotiating position? And why does he not explore the consequences of a unilateral withdrawal from Gaza in terms of it representing a reward for terror, resulting in a boost for Hamas and an undermining of Mahmoud Abbas? Moreover, doesn`t an uncompromising biblically-based Jewish claim, especially to East Jerusalem, add crucial weight to Israel`s position in the light of the Palestinian rationale of not only nationalism but also religious imperative? Finally, to me it is not very seemly to criticize as politically naive those who unashamedly take the Five Books of Moses seriously. One man`s naivete is another`s faith. Schick may disagree with their interpretation of Scripture, but the religious Right really does have a point. Glenn Friedman, New York, NY Joseph Schick seems to suffer from the same defeatist attitude that afflicts many in the Jewish community. No one respects someone who does not stand up for principle. When Arafat rejected the so-called Clinton Plan, it was only because he thought it was a gift so easy to come by that an even better deal was just around the corner. For good reason, he saw Oslo as a ground floor for future negotiations. Nor has President Bush gone as far as he has because of Israel`s rolling over. Bush`s support is as strong as it is because of Israel`s willingness to take on terror and its refusal to knuckle under to the UN and the Europeans. Barak`s unilateral withdrawal from Lebanon made heroes of Hizbullah and did more than anything else to glorify terrorism in the Arab world and encourage Palestinian recalcitrance. How can anyone think that Gaza will be any different? The problem is not that people don`t think that Sharon has a plan to keep as much as possible, but that he does not seem to have learned from recent history. Leslie Millstein Joseph Schick replies: Yitzchak Cates`s kind words are appreciated. Glenn Friedman asks why I don`t explore the consequences of a unilateral withdrawal from Gaza. In fact, I have analyzed — in detail — Sharon`s plan in previous Jewish Press columns, and expressed my opposition to the withdrawal based upon such analysis. Those columns are available on the Jewish Press website. Mr. Friedman believes that "absolutist opposition" will "lead to fewer Israeli concessions over time." But history suggests the opposite. Prime Minister Shamir`s government was brought down by the far right following Israel`s participation in the 1991 Madrid Conference. Shamir was replaced by Yitzhak Rabin, who signed the Oslo Accords and revived the PLO. The National Religious Party caused the collapse of the Netanyahu government following the 1998 Wye River Agreement to transfer 13 percent of Judea and Samaria to the Palestinian Authority. When Ehud Barak defeated Netanyahu in the ensuing election, the NRP was the first to join Barak`s new coalition. Barak`s concessions at Camp David and Taba dwarfed anything Netanyahu ever contemplated. This does not mean that right-wing opposition to Sharon is always inappropriate or ineffective. As I wrote, my views are similar to those of Uzi Landau, who leads the Likud opposition to Sharon. Landau recognizes that territorial compromise will be necessary for real peace, but rejects the Sharon plan. Coherent opposition based upon pragmatic goals is distinct from "absolutist opposition." As for the Five Books of Moses, I too take them seriously — along with the rest of Tanach and the Talmud. Religiously, historically and morally, Israel has a right to all of Judea and Samaria. But a strategy that ignores the serious challenges Israel faces will not succeed in retaining disputed territory. Leslie Millstein calls my attitude "defeatist" but his letter has little to do with my column. The column and previous ones clearly stated my view that Oslo, Ehud Barak`s acceptance of the Clinton Plan and the unilateral withdrawal from Gaza were and are mistakes. Mr. Millstein`s failure to distinguish between my political views and goals and those of Barak are a good illustration of my column`s assertion that many on the extreme right have no ability to recognize nuance. Not everyone to the left of Kach is a leftist. Mr. Millstein`s apparent belief that President Bush`s vision for a permanent settlement differs greatly from Clinton`s ignores Bush`s frequent comments that indicate the contrary. Books The esteemed Emmy-winning screenwriter Robert J. Avrech of Seraphic Press passes along a few questions about books to me because he is "really curious about Joe's taste in books." I'm honored that Robert has asked me these questions, though am not sure I'm the best candidate for the query. Off the cuff, here are the questions and my answers. You're stuck inside Fahrenheit 451, which book do you want to be? Is this asking what book I would want to have burned? If so, I guess anything by Noam Chomsky would be a good candidate. The last book you bought is: The Hebrew Kid And The Apache Maiden, by Robert J. Avrech. I started reading this book on Friday night December 10, 2004 and finished it on Saturday afternoon, December 11, 2004. On December 12, 2004, my son was born. I highly recommend the book; my review appears on Amazon. The last book you read: Caring for Your Baby and Young Child: Birth to Age 5 When my son has had colic and kept me up at night, I've consulted this book, and it continues to remain on my couch. Since my son is only 3 1/2 months old, I'm still in the early chapters, but I've read up to his age. What are you currently reading? The Dawn: Political Teachings of the Book of Esther, by Yoram Hazony. This book works as a novel, as a book on Jewish thought, and as a political manifesto. Five books you would take to a deserted island. 1. The Tanach 2. Six Days Of War, by Michael Oren 3. Look Back, Mrs. Lot, by Ephraim Kishon (and almost everything else by Kishon) 4. Journey to Tradition, by Michael Levin. This book was written in the 80's; I found it in Strand Bookstore in Greenwich Village in 1995 and am happy I did. 5. Aryeh Kaplan Anthology, by Aryeh Kaplan. Rabbi Kaplan, who passed away in the early 1980's at the age of 48, left behind many important works that are included in this anthology. A Tragedy That Pierces All Our Lives Amid all the debates on both important and frivolous issues, I haven't seen anything in the Orthodox blogosphere about the devastating tragedy on Monday night in Teaneck, in which 4 children died in a fire, with their mother critically injured, and two surviving sisters recovering from (reportedly) relatively moderate injuries. In the Teaneck community, as many as 2000 people attended yesterday's funerals. Hopefully the silence of bloggers is not due to apathy but to the failure to write anything meaningful in the wake of such a disaster. Today's Bergen Record has a column by Mike Kelly - who I trust is not a member of the observant Jewish community - entitled 'A Tragedy That Pierces All Our Lives'. Kelly wrote, in part: In the end, this tragedy does not merely force us to examine fire codes, smoke detectors - or even the actions of firefighters who may have done all the right things but still could not prevent these deaths. What makes this tragedy so different, not just within Teaneck but far beyond, is that it forces us to examine its inherent unfairness... So in our homes now, maybe we will change that old battery in that old smoke detector. Maybe we will plot our family's escape routes in case fire breaks out, too. But if we ponder this tragedy long enough, we will likely peer into our souls and ask that terrible question that reveals our terrible vulnerability. Why? Wednesday, March 23, 2005
Terri Schiavo I have been hesitant to express my thoughts about the Terri Schiavo controversy, mainly because it and she have been turned into a political football. I am not comfortable with the involvement of our legislative and executive branches into the question of whether Terri Schiavo's feeding tube should have been removed. I also am very skeptical of claims by many conservatives that she is in fact not in a vegetative state, and that she can recover with aggressive treatment. The innuendo placing Michael Schiavo - Terri's husband - in a demonic light also disturbs me. I'm not interested in participating in a debate relating to Schiavo that centers around the contrasting views and values of liberalism and conservatism, or secularism and religiosity. It's not that those issues are not important in questions relating to medical ethics. Indeed, they are essential, as is the debate. But their application to the Schiavo case has made objective consideration difficult, with both sides distorting the reality in arguing its position. Nevertheless, I think the removal of Schiavo's feeding tube is tragic. Michael Schiavo claims that his wife told him that she did not have want to live in this vegetative state, but there is no evidence of his assertion, certainly nothing in writing. Common sense places Mr. Schiavo's claims in doubt. Terri was 26 when she went into cardiac arrest and suffered severe brain damage; it seems questionable at best that she would have seriously contemplated whether she would prefer to die rather than live in her current condition. Nobody can blame Mr. Schiavo for wanting to move on with his life and marry his girlfriend, but that desire is motivation for him to call for his wife's feeding tube to be removed so she dies. President Bush has said it's best to err on the side of allowing Schiavo to live, but I think that misses the point. The real question is whether, without a writing expressing the patient's wishes, another person - including her husband - should be allowed to decide to take action to end the patient's life. If the answer is yes, the question remains whether a person who is in a persistent vegetative state but whose condition is stable should be viewed identically as someone who is terminally ill. I think the answer is no. There is a difference between keeping someone on artificial life support, and allowing someone to eat. There is also, I believe, a difference between someone who is in a great deal of pain and Ms. Schiavo, who by all accounts is not experiencing any suffering. Given that Ms. Schiavo's parents are willing to accept responsibility for her care and that there are - to use a term common in litigation - disputed issues of fact regarding what her wishes would be - I do not believe there was a basis for removal of her feeding tube. Sadly, nor do I believe there is a legal basis for the United States Supreme Court to reverse state and federal decisions in favor of Mr. Schiavo's position. Tuesday, March 22, 2005
Science Times On Slifkin I don't have a problem with the feature in today's New York Times about Rabbi Nosson Slifkin and the ban on his books. The piece has a very favorable tone toward Slifkin, and indicates (accurately, I think) that many observant Jews - whether modern, charedi or otherwise - reject the views of the rabbis who signed the ban. The article states that the leading observant blogger, "Rabbi Gil Student, whose company, Yashar Books, has taken over the distribution of the other two books, said he had done a year's business in a month selling them." Congrats to Gil. I'm waiting for Slifkin's The Science of Torah to be reprinted; the other books interest me less. FrumTeens In light of the current controversy regarding FrumTeens, I'm linking to my thoughts about the site, as posted on August 1, 2003. I wrote, then, in part: The site deals with a vast array of issues. I strongly disagree with the moderator (apparently there are several) on issues concerning Zionism, and modern orthodoxy. As examples, Rav Kook is compared to Korach, while Rav Soloveitchik is essentially labeled an egomaniac. The moderator's approach is so harsh, that I believe the site to be worthless with regard to these issues. With regard to the "at-risk" kids and teens, I stated: Not only does the moderator deal patiently and supportively with each of these kids (he reminds them, for example, that Joshua married Rachav, a former prostitute), he does not hesitate to criticize the schools and teachers for causing and/or worsening many of the problems. He points out that throwing out kids is in almost all cases a violation of Jewish law, and is done because teachers do not like to deal with difficult kids. He also correctly ridicules the approach to "at risk" kids, which is to isolate those kids while ignoring the reasons why the problem is growing. Sunday, March 20, 2005
Brian Lehrer Challenges Uzi Landau With My Column Friday morning on his radio program on New York's WNYC, Brian Lehrer interviewed Likud's Uzi Landau about Landau's opposition to Ariel Sharon's "disengagement" plan. The 14 minute segment can be heard here. In my column in the last issue of the Jewish Press, I wrote that "my views are similar to those of Uzi Landau and Natan Sharansky of Likud, who support territorial compromises for real peace, but will not make concessions without reciprocity. People who are critical of Sharon, but reject extremist invective." Lehrer challenged Landau's opposition to Sharon by invoking my column. Lehrer told Landau that my column stated that I agreed with Landau, but quoted the following excerpt from my column: "Sharon's goal appears to be to retain all of Jerusalem's Old City, part of the Jordan Valley, and more than the four percent of Judea and Samaria that Israel was left with under the Clinton Plan." Lehrer told Landau that I then expressed disagreement with Sharon's approach, but that I wrote that "the failure of so many to even understand that Sharon has a plan is odd." Lehrer left out the portion of that paragraph that asserted that Sharon's "refusal to answer substantive questions and criticism does not inspire confidence." Landau responded that nobody really knows what Sharon's plan is, so it's difficult to debate the pros and cons of an unstated plan. It's ironic that something that I wrote would be used to defend Sharon and challenge Landau. My political views are definitely closer to Landau's. My column was a challenge to observant Jews on the extreme right who are opposed to ever compromising over territory, and who regard Sharon as close to being a traitor. In the forum I am sometimes given in the Jewish Press, I generally choose to address its readers with analytical pieces relating to Israel's political goals and their obstacles. I challenge them to view Israel pragmatically, not solely based on emotion. I do not refrain from expressing right-wing political views, but don't see the point of repeatedly preaching to the converted. I believe that I am writing from the left of most readers and most columnists of the JP, and the tone of my columns often reflects that. If I were writing in the Jewish Week or the Forward, my columns would be different, challenging those on the left with the naive positions that many of them hold. The 'New' Mets Nothing satiates the appetites of the Mets front office like the availability of overpaid mediocre pitchers. Now they are set to acquire Kaz Ishii from the Dodgers for catcher Jason Phillips. The Mets will now have traded both Phillips and Vance Wilson and are heavily relying on Mike Piazza to catch, despite the steep decline in Piazza's offensive and defensive skills. Even with the Dodgers throwing in some cash, this is not a move I like. Ishii had an ERA last season of 4.71, while Matt Ginter, who would have replaced the injured Steve Trachsel and been the Mets number 5 starter, had a 4.54 ERA. Jae Seo, another option, started 52 games for the Mets over the last two seasons, with a 4.22 ERA. Of course, this trade is not as awful as the acquisitions of Victor Zambrano and Kris Benson. I like Phillips, but he had a terrible season last year, at least at the plate. Ishii can be bought out after the 2005 season, and may be motivated to pitch effectively more consistently. But given that the Mets had two very capable backup catchers, and that Piazza can't be relied upon to stay healthy, it's difficult to understand why GM Omar Minaya rushed to trade Wilson to the Tigers. The Mets now have no catcher of the future. Thursday, March 17, 2005
Mark McGwire Mark McGwire got terrible advice from his attorneys. The chances of him being prosecuted for something related to use of steroids years ago are very remote. His answers made clear that he used steroids, but his refusal to directly admit to steroid use and take responsibility for his past mistakes will leave even the most forgiving unsympathetic toward him. G-d A reader has e-mailed me to criticize the lack of "a dash" in G-d's name in my latest Jewish Press column. He claims that Jewish Press policy is always to use the term "G-d." While I have no idea what the policy of the Jewish Press is, I can state that my draft of this week's column, as submitted to the Jewish Press, used the term "G-d." The paper's editors changed it, as is their prerogative; I have no control over editorial changes by the newspaper. Generally, I use the term "G-d" on this blog. However, I view this as a custom, rather than something mandated by Jewish law. Wednesday, March 16, 2005
Jewish Press Column Following is my column in this week's Jewish Press: By most standards, my political views on Israel are fairly right wing. I think the project of settlement of Judea, Samaria and Gaza is not only inherently legitimate, but heroic and courageous. I strongly opposed Oslo and Ehud Barak’s willingness to divide Jerusalem, and don’t like Prime Minister Sharon’s “disengagement” plan. My views are similar to those of Uzi Landau and Natan Sharansky of Likud, who support territorial compromises for real peace, but will not make concessions without reciprocity. People who are critical of Sharon, but reject extremist invective. Most of the world would consider my views to be “hard line,” but not so in much of the observant Jewish world, where right-wing extremism on Israel has become commonplace. Even as they strongly support President Bush — who, for all his praiseworthy support of Israel’s defense against terror, is de facto imposing a forced settlement in which Israel will retain very little disputed territory — many on the Right insist that Israel must cede no territory, with not a few deeming Sharon`s plan to be not only erroneous, but essentially evil. There appears to be less room than ever among far right-wingers for nuance, for recognition that Israel will have to give up territory but must fight hard to keep whatever it can. There is no understanding that both Oslo and Barak’s concessions greatly damaged Israel’s negotiating position, and that Sharon’s motivation is to preserve more than the four percent Israel would have kept had Arafat accepted the Clinton Plan. When people ask why Israel should “give up” land, they forget that today Israel cannot even build in Maaleh Adumim — a city of nearly 30,000 just outside Jerusalem that everyone expects to be permanently retained — without world censure. Indeed, a nearly decade-old plan to connect Maaleh Adumim to Jerusalem remains on hold due to international opposition. Sharon’s goal appears to be to retain all of Jerusalem’s Old City, part of the Jordan Valley, and more than the four percent of Judea and Samaria that Israel was left with under the Clinton Plan. I feel strongly that Sharon’s plan of unilateral withdrawal is the wrong way to implement his strategy, and his refusal to answer substantive questions and criticism does not inspire confidence. But the failure of so many to even understand that Sharon has a plan is odd. Often, the same people who castigate Sharon for making territorial concessions strongly support Bush. This simply ignores that Bush never misses a chance to call for a “contiguous” Palestinian state and insists that “a state on scattered territories will not work,” that “settlement activity in occupied territories must stop.” As Bush’s demands for Arab democracy and an end to terror are, appropriately, lauded, there is complete cognitive dissonance regarding Bush’s demands on Israel, with Sharon apparently expected to govern as though these demands simply don’t exist. A common response of observant Jews to the argument that the Right must be pragmatic is that everything is up to God. But while faith is vital to observant Jewish life, we are not expected to rely on God and avoid making rational, difficult decisions. A person who is ill must not depend on the Almighty to cure him, though of course prayer is appropriate and important. Divisiveness among Jews is not now all that different from the times of Rome’s occupation of the Land of Israel, and it is not clear why we should expect political zealotry to be more successful today than it was then. Ultimately, diplomatic, political and military decisions must be made based upon rational considerations, not on an assumption (as distinguished from the hope) of divine intervention. When rational considerations are taken, it becomes clear that Israel is not forever going to retain all of the disputed land it currently holds; that Oslo, Camp David and Taba render partition inevitable. In light of these realities, a pragmatic and sober recognition of the threat to the Jewish enterprise in Judea and Samaria must be made by those on the Right, with a goal of saving as much as possible. Every “settlement” that is eventually annexed to Israel will grow substantially. Maaleh Adumim and Ariel could become major cities, and Gush Etzion has the potential to become a key region in Israel over the next decades. But for this to happen, those on the Right must acknowledge, as Sharon has, that partition is a painful inevitability.. If we insist on ideological purity and leave this task to Ehud Barak and Shimon Peres, we will, God forbid, end up mourning the ruins of the entire settlement enterprise and having to enter the State of Palestine to reach the Western Wall in a divided Jerusalem. Bush on Settlements Yesterday in Jordan, President Bush said, "Israel must withdraw from the settlements. There must be contiguous territory for a Palestinian state - into which a Palestinian state can grow." Bush spokesman Scott McClellan claims that "what the president was referring to was the withdrawal plan that is being pursued by Prime Minister Sharon as well as the unauthorized outposts which the roadmap calls for Israel to remove." The reference to "contiguous territory for a Palestinian state" makes clear that Bush was not only referring to the withdrawal from Gaza, northern Samaria and the outposts, since those withdrawals would not leave enough territory for a contiguous state in Judea and Samaria. If McClellan is to be believed, Bush is the buffoon his detractors say he is. More likely, Bush's vision for the Middle East includes an Israeli withdrawal from Judea and Samaria at least as broad as that proposed by President Clinton. In the meantime, observant Jews - the only people in the world who care about Jewish life in Judea, Samaria and Gaza and the Jews with the most access to the Bush Administration - continue to proclaim Bush as Israel's savior and never offer a counter-argument directly to Bush or his subordinates in favor of permanent retention of more than 5 percent of Judea and Samaria. Tuesday, March 15, 2005
Haaretz On Settlements Today's Haaretz includes three interesting columns on the Jewish settlement of Judea, Samaria and Gaza. Writing from a right-wing perspective and lamenting government opposition to settlement outposts, Nadav Shargai asserts that: "'Unauthorized settlement outposts' have existed here for many years, ever since Jewish settlement in the Land of Israel resumed in the early 20th century." Shargai argues, in part, that: "Morally, there is no difference between the settlement of parts of the Land of Israel inhabited by Arabs in the early 20th century and settlements and outposts in parts of the Land of Israel inhabited by Arabs in the early 21st century. Either both are moral, or both are immoral... "Both settlement movements were the product of normative political Zionism. Settlements in the Negev and the Galilee were political, just as settlements in Judea, Samaria and Gaza are political... That is how Israel was built. Even some of the 'major settlement blocs' that Sharon (still?) wants to keep began their lives as unauthorized outposts. Even Ma'aleh Adumim, a large city, the largest settlement in the territories, began as an outpost with temporary housing." Former Foreign Minister and Defense Minister Moshe Arens strongly criticizes the failure of a long-term strategy by those who have planned settlement of Yesha. Arens, an opponent of Sharon's unilateral withdrawal plan, writes: "In encouraging at first the establishment of scattered small settlements without any clear direction, and then launching a plan for the unilateral uprooting of small settlements and the Gush Katif settlement block, there seems to have been an abundance of tactical moves but certainly no evidence of a long-term strategy. The basic variables of the problems facing Israel - the Palestinians, demographics and national security - have not sufficiently changed in past years to warrant this kind of a turnaround. It is unlikely to lead Israel in the right direction." Finally, left-wing columnist Yoel Marcus reminds readers that "the truth of the matter is that after 1967, it was the left that laid the foundations for settlement in the territories." Indeed, Marcus writes: "After the Six-Day War, the Labor governments began settling the occupied territories. Beit El, Elkana, Kiryat Arba, Kedumim - these settlements, and others, were the handiwork of the Labor party." (Marcus is actually wrong about Beit El, which was established months after Menachem Begin was elected in 1977. Ofra, down the road from Beit El, was established in 1975, when Yitzhak Rabin was Prime Minister and indirectly paved the way for Beit El's foundation.) Marcus is right that Gush Emunim got its start under Rabin's first government, in the mid-1970's. In this regard, the other day, I was going through some of my father's old Jewish Press columns from the 1970's, some of which criticized Rabin's ambivalent approach to Gush Emunim, which resulted in Israel's failure to have a coherent policy vis a vis Judea and Samaria. When Begin was elected, Gush Emunim and Sharon pushed for a number of new settlements to be established. Friday, March 11, 2005
Banning Comments I don't believe in bans, and I don't believe in bloggers who take their blogs too seriously. I have tried to politely respond to everyone's comments, including people whose views differ sharply from my own. Nevertheless, I am forced to ban comments from a person (or at least the person's IP Addresses) who apparently has posted anti-Israel comments in the name of Rick Probstein, even including Mr. Probstein's e-mail address and web site information. I became suspicious upon learning, upon checking out the web site, that Mr. Probstein works for a pro-Israel organization. I contacted Mr. Probstein, who explained that he had never posted these comments, and that he rejects the views expressed in those comments. Expressing anti-Israel comments does not, of course, warrant a ban from this blog. Nor do I have a problem with using a pseudonym. Expressing comments in someone's name, even including that person's contact info, is something else entirely and is absolutely intolerable. The comments in question remain, but Mr. Probstein's name, e-mail address and web site information have been deleted. I believe the person who posted the comments owes an apology to Mr. Probstein. Wednesday, March 09, 2005
Daniel Okrent and Settlers The insidious defamation of Jewish residents of Judea, Samaria and Gaza is so pervasive, that even when Israel's position is supported, the "settlers" are still demonized, presumably serving a role of useful scapegoat in the interests of evenhandedness. In his column in Sunday's New York Times Week In Review, Public Editor Daniel Okrent took on the issue of words used by newspapers in its reports from the Middle East. Okrent was critical of the Times' policy not to use the words "terrorism" or "terrorist." He wrote: I think in some instances The Times's earnest effort to avoid bias can desiccate language and dilute meaning... While some Israelis and their supporters assert that any Palestinian holding a gun is a terrorist, there can be neither factual nor moral certainty that he is. But if the same man fires into a crowd of civilians, he has committed an act of terror, and he is a terrorist. My own definition is simple: an act of political violence committed against purely civilian targets is terrorism; attacks on military targets are not. Regrettably, Okrent also took a shot at the use of the loaded word "settlers", asking: "Are they merely settlers when they carry out armed actions against Palestinians?" In fact, anyone who carries out armed actions against civilians is a terrorist. Baruch Goldstein, who murdered 29 Arabs in Hebron in 1994, was one such terrorist. Since 1967, there have been a few other armed attacks by "settlers" against Palestinians, but more than 99 percent of "settlers" have never carried out armed actions against Palestinians. The vast majority are peaceful people. Were Okrent to analyze the word "Arabs" and ask: "Are they merely Arabs when they carry out armed actions against Israelis and Americans?", the reaction would be fierce. Amid much appropriate fury, Okrent would apologize and be forced to resign for implying that being an Arab is synonymous with being a terrorist. The truth is that the word "settler" is a loaded term that should not be used. It implies colonialism, when in fact Judea, Samaria and Gaza were liberated in a defensive war against countries (Jordan and Egypt) that were occupying those territories. There was never Palestinian sovereignty over any of these areas and with the possible exception of a few of the outposts, the Jewish communities have not been built on private land. One need not be a supporter of "settlers" or "settlements" to reject the notion that they are colonialist. While many Israelis are politically opposed to the "settlement" movement, there is a consensus that Jews have a moral right to live in those areas, with the question being whether "settlement" on a large scale is in Israel's interest given the reality of the Arab residents who live in Judea, Samaria and Gaza. The widespread support even among leftists for post-1967 communities like Maaleh Adumim, Givat Zeev and those in Gush Etzion would be unexplainable if Israelis saw all "settlement" as illegitimate. As Haaretz's Nadav Sharagi has written: The morality of "settlement" after 1967, is equivalent to the morality of settling the land after 1948. Morally, historically and religiously, the right of the Jewish people to the Land of Israel, takes precedence over the right of other peoples here. The internal dispute within Israel is over what is possible within the framework of the security and international reality that the country faces. In general, and almost always, the settlements are not set up on privately-owned land but on state land. The Palestinians were not expelled from their homes as a result of the establishment of the settlements. The settlements were built alongside the Palestinian towns and villages and not in their place. Since 1967, not a single Palestinian town or village has been moved. Ariel Sharon and the Outposts As expected, a new report has concluded that the Israeli government has provided support and services for settlement outposts set up in Judea, Samaria and Gaza. The report was commissioned by Prime Minister Sharon under orders of the Bush Administration to assist him in the politically difficult endeavor of removing many of these outposts. That Sharon was a strong supporter of new settlements is anything but a secret. As Agriculture Minister, Housing Minister, Infrastructure Minister and even Foreign Minister, Sharon did all he could to assist settlement in locations he thought to be strategic. Indeed, in his first term as Prime Minister, in 2001 and 2002, many of the outposts were erected with quiet - but hardly secret - government support. It's not surprising that as Prime Minister, Sharon has a different view, taking the position that the outposts must be removed. Whether motivated by political pressure from the U.S., pragmatism, an ideological shift, or some combination of these factors, Sharon's turnabout could have been expected. What is outrageous is Sharon's cynical reaction to the report. As reported in today's New York Times, Raanan Gissin, a Sharon adviser and spokesman stated: "If laws were broken, subject to the decision of the attorney general, indictments may be made. Israel is a country of the rule of law, and laws will be upheld." This is laughable, because if anyone deserves to be indicted over the manner in which settlements have been erected and funded (for what it's worth I don't think any such indictments are appropriate), it is Ariel Sharon. This is something that those on the left and right can agree on. It was Sharon who - immediately after the Wye Agreement to give the PLO 13 percent of Judea and Samaria was signed - called upon Israelis to "grab every hilltop." And Sharon did much more than call for settlement of empty land, he was a key actor in facilitating such settlement. As Nadav Shragai explains in today's Haaretz, a typical outpost would be formed in the following manner: "That is a strategic location of primary importance," Sharon is quoted as saying while pointing at a bare hill. "That hill should be taken. We will first build a pool up there," he said. Officials of the Mekorot Water Company tried to explain that the location was unsuitable for a water reservoir, but Sharon was unmoved: "I trust you," he said, "Solve the problem." Later Sharon turned to the settlers and said half-jokingly: "Set a guard over the water reservoir. He will of course be lonely. He will marry and have a family. The children will need friends. Other families will follow. Then there will be a minyan [quorum]. A quorum needs a synagogue. The women need a mikveh [a ritual bath]. The children need a kindergarten and parks. That is how we will turn Mitzpeh Horsha into a settlement." Tuesday, March 08, 2005
Ammar Abdulhamid Reb Yudel alerts us to Syrian author Ammar Abdulhamid, who blogs from Damascus in protest of Bashar Assad's regime. Here is an excerpt from today's posts: The "march in support of the President" will take place tomorrow, Wednesday, at 2:00 pm. It will be mostly made up of state employees who will be bused from their offices to the Stadium in the company of military and security personnel, all dressed in civilian attire. These people will represent all of us, all too enthusiastically and honestly, of course, at the scheduled Freak Show. Meanwhile, today, our brethren the Lebanese had a freak show of their own. It was the Nasrallah Hizbollah Show, where thousands of adoring appreciative fans sang the praises of the Syrian President and Benefactor... The truth is, and the people know it, Baath rule brought nothing but shame and humiliation. It destroyed the very moral and civil fabric of our fledgling republic. And the people know it. And the people know it. That’s exactly the problem. The people know it. This is not the time of ignorance anymore. We know. We are informed. We may not the whole truth about what is happening all around in us, but we really don’t need to. We just know enough not to be fooled by empty promises and gestures. Lebanon, Syria and Israel The upheaval that is occurring in Lebanon brings to mind a fascinating column published in 2001 by The Jerusalem Post. Nabil Khalifeh, a political activist in Beirut, was credited with writing the column, but he later denied having written anything of the sort. Yet a Nabil Khalifeh is now arguing that the recent events have "terminated Syria's historic dream of annexing Lebanon in stages." Though speculative, it's likely that Khalifeh wrote the Jerusalem Post column, and, fearing for his life when it was published online, was forced to disavow it. The column is most relevant during the current situation. Following is the portion about Syria and Lebanon; the author's scathing criticism of Yasser Arafat appears in the full version. As a Lebanese who survived the hard times of the last 25 years, and saw and is still seeing his country turning into a wasteland, I know the meaning of doing the right thing at the right time. We had our chances in 1982 and we blew them, but a new school of political thought is shaping itself, and the hope of regaining our rightful place in the Middle East is being rejuvenated. It is in this context that I address the people of Israel and the national unity government in a sincere and truthful manner, without claiming to own the whole truth and total knowledge. First of all, I believe that a strong and democratic state in Israel is a must to insure the stability of the region, even though the forces of evil consider this treason and blasphemy. But the fact that they have nothing to offer but destruction and bloodshed makes their opinion trivial. Let there be no compromise with these people: we know them well... The question of Lebanon and Syria is actually one problem. It is no secret anymore that Syria is the sole maestro of all events happening in Lebanon, from government decisions to Hizbullah attacks across the border. Actually, Israel holds a large share of the responsibility, not because you do not want to kick the Syrians out (which is our job as Lebanese), but by encouraging the former Assad regime on many occasions, by giving him a free hand in Lebanese matters and sending friendly signals during the last two decades. Hafez Assad was a first-class politician, a regional leader, a man who kept his word - but he belongs in the hall of fame of the greatest butchers of the 20th century, alongside Hitler, Stalin and a few others. Hafez Assad never planned to sign a peace treaty with Israel, despite what he used to repeat publicly. We were sure of it, and we even bet on it. He was fascinated by Saladin, the liberator of Jerusalem, and he would spend hours talking to his guests about this great figure who defeated the outsiders, those who dared establish their state on Moslem land. His son, President Bashar Assad, would never accept what his father refused; his intentions were clear in the speech he gave in the presence of the pope at Damascus Airport. The Turkish experience with Syria regarding the PKK should be an example for dealing with these people, whose concept of international relations is based on balance of power. The regime's weak spot is Lebanon, and the policy of retaliating against Syrian targets is actually destabilizing the image Syria patiently created - that its presence is a necessity to Lebanon. In fact, Syria represents a curse to our small country. We salute your government and we give thanks to Defence Minister Binyamin Ben-Eliezer for his clear and accurate statements regarding Lebanon (he's a true son of the region), and to all who share his opinions. This is the right way to do it and we modestly advise the following: * Never retreat from Sheba Farms. A new issue will immediately emerge. (Has anyone in Israel heard about "the seven villages?") You will hear about it as soon as you give Sheba away. * Do not give conflicting statements about your policy towards Lebanon and Syria: Be firm and to the point. Otherwise, your resolve will appear weak. * Never bargain with Syria over Lebanon; it will be a fatal mistake, and not only for us. It will give your enemies everywhere a taste of victory and the idea of destroying the Jewish state will gain a momentum never before achieved. Bill Maher, Hollywood and Real Americans While trying to take care of my infant son in the wee hours of Sunday morning, I stumbled upon Bill Maher's HBO show. His guest was Ward Churchill, the nutty professor who has argued that those murdered at the World Trade Center were "little Eichmanns" who deserved their fate. Maher politely disagreed with Churchill, while affirming that Churchill deserves "to be heard." Maher tried to prod Churchill into explaining the context of his statements so as to give them a more moderate meaning, though Churchill didn't really cooperate. After a few minutes, Maher introduced the brother of a Cantor Fitzgerald employee who was murdered on 9/11. The brother said that he thinks Churchill owes an apology, but Churchill avoided giving one. Then Maher told the brother that he believes that there should be a "Why They Hate Us" pavilion at the site of the World Trade Center, and asks the brother if he agrees. When the brother said he thought that would be inappropriate, Maher - after going extremely soft on Churchill - challenges him, demanding to know if the brother is denying that the terrorists have valid reasons to hate us. The brother, obviously taken aback, says, in a defensive tone, that, well, they probably do have reasons for hating us, he's just saying the pavilion shouldn't be at the WTC. Maher is a self-promotional jerk and isn't worth taking seriously. What is troubling is that an idiot like this is given a forum to give legitimacy to Ward Churchill and to anti-American/pro-terrorist nonsense. I'm confident that in the real world, in blue states like New York and in red states like Tennessee, nobody but the lunatic fringe has any semblance of the idiotic ideas of Ward Churchill and Bill Maher. Sure, there may be disagreement about Iraq, about how to deal with the Arab world and Europe, and some may be quite critical of some decisions this country's leaders have made. But evil - including the murder of thousands of civilians at work or on an airplane - is recognized as evil, and there is no need to rationalize terrorism and terrorists. This real world is apart from much of the entertainment world, in which, at best, moral relativism prevails, and at times there is outright support for evil in the guise of supporting something radical. As an observant Jewish screenwriter in Los Angeles recently wrote: Hollywood people like to feel that they are compassionate. But their compassion is usually only reserved for leftists, or totally self-destructive losers. When my son Ariel died, only two Hollywood people came to the shiva house: my agent, a wonderful woman who is like my big sister, and a young director who I helped get his start in the business. Someone once said to me, "You have to understand, Robert, Ariel died from cancer. It was not a fashionable death like AIDS." You see, Ariel's death just made my Hollywood acquaintances uncomfortable. And so, they disappeared. If Ariel had died, God forbid, from a drug overdose or from some sexually transmitted disease, well, the shiva house would have been a total Hollywood party. This is not an exaggeration... It's not unusual to sit in a Hollywood meeting where the first ten minutes are taken up with amazingly sophisticated chit-chat on the current world scene. The dialogue goes something like this: "Bush is a Nazi." "Bush is a moron." "Bush is ruining our relations with France." "The election was stolen." "What about the Peace Process?" "I can understand suicide bombers in Israel--what choice do they have?" Sunday, March 06, 2005
Jets Offseason It's too early to definitively assess whether the Jets offseason moves will make them a better or worse team in 2005. But thus far their offseason has been disappointing. The return of Laveranues Coles in exchange for Santana Moss is a very good acquisition. Coles simply fits much better with an offense led by Chad Pennington, in which wide receivers ideally go down the middle of the field on 10-20 yard routes. Moss is better suited to a wide open offense in which long passes are routine. The Coles trade will make Pennington a better quarterback, and the Jets offense more potent. Otherwise, the Jets have been disappointing. I'd have given Lamont Jordan the franchise tag to ensure that he stayed. Once John Abraham was franchised instead, Jordan's departure became inevitable. The Jets acted quickly to replace Jordan with Derrick Blaylock of the Chiefs. Blaylock ran well last season when he filled in for an injured Priest Holmes, but given salary cap realities, I think giving B.J. Askew a chance to backup Curtis Martin would have made more sense than going outside the organization for a backup. Askew was drafted in the 3rd round of the 2003 draft, but is stuck as a third stringer. The Jets failure to re-sign nose tackle Jason Ferguson is inexcusable. Instead of locking Ferguson up sometime last year, the Jets took their time, and eventually Ferguson took his and waited for the free agency signing period to commence. As soon as it did, the Cowboys gave Ferguson a large contract. The Jets were right not to match Dallas' offer; their mistake was to let Ferguson test the market in the first place. Similarly, the Jets failed to extend offensive tackle Kareem McKenzie's contract, allowing him to test the market, and he has left for the Giants. Again, the contract McKenzie signed was not worth matching, the problem is the Jets' failure to sign him to a contract over the last six months. With McKenzie and tight end Anthony Becht leaving, the Jets' pass protection and run blocking will likely be worse next season. Indeed, Jets GM Terry Bradway's biggest weakness is his consistent underestimation of what his players are worth on the free agent market. That's what caused Coles to leave two years ago. The Jets are hoping to replace Becht with Broncos tight end Jeb Putzier, who they signed to an offer sheet on Friday. Putzier doesn't block as well as Becht, but can catch the ball and spread out defenses, something Becht couldn't consistently do and the Jets desperately need. Denver has a week to match, and likely will, unfortunately, since the Jets offer is very salary cap friendly. Hopefully the Jets will recover from some of their free agent losses. With the impending departure of a number of its veterans and both of its coordinators, the Patriots should be vulnerable in 2005. It would be a shame if the Jets took a step back and missed an opportunity to join the NFL elite. Friday, March 04, 2005
Mesiras Nefesh In her Cross-Currents post today, Shira Schmidt offers thoughts on the Siyum Hashas and Daf Yomi from the perspective of a charedi woman in Israel. Whether or not one agrees with Mrs. Schmidt's religious ideology, her posting is generally worthwhile and her thoughts of interest. Unfortunately, toward the end of her long post, Mrs. Schmidt unnecessarily offends (while adding nothing to the substance of her main post), by taking a shot at religious Zionist Israelis. Mrs. Schmidt wrote (all grammatical errors are Mrs. Schmidt's): "I would like to ruminate about the way [the charedi and the national religious] use the word 'mesirus nefesh' (lit. self-sacrifice). At the siyum, the Kaliver Rebbe used the term mesius nefesh twice in connecting with Torah study, and once in connection with the sacrifice by women... "I contrasted this use of the term with an article I read in Haaretz on the way to the siyum, about the controversy by a few extreme settlers in Gush Katif of whether mesirus nefesh was demanded if the disengagement forces Jews out of Gaza. In 'Choose death over violation of the law?' by Nadav Shragai, Rabbi Tzvi Yehuda Kook was quoted as saying, 'It is a positive commandment from the Torah, ... that we are obligated to this land, and all of its borders, with mesirus nefesh. When a situation of coercion arrives … we are all obligated to yihareg ve’al yaavor.' "I contemplated the the consequences that ensue from the different foci in these two sectors of Orthodoxy: the Daf Yomi rabbis invoke mersirus nefesh for study, while some in the national religious sector apply mesirus nefesh to emphasis on the land of Israel." I don't agree with the political extremism of a small number of those who are religious Zionist, but Mrs. Schmidt's contrast is most offensive, and requires a response. First, she distorts the Haaretz article. Rabbi Tzvi Yehuda Kook was most certainly not quoted with respect to the Gaza withdrawal - as Mrs. Schmidt implies - because he passed away long ago. The quote from R. Kook is from 1974, and the Haaretz article's main premise is that today "some people are taking things too far, and using Rabbi Zvi Yehuda to back them up." The article, incidentally, is by one of Haaretz's very few religious and right-wing writers, Nadav Shragai. Second, while it is fair to criticize the religious Zionist sector's approach since the Six Day War, in which the Land of Israel has become its main priority, Mrs. Schmidt completely ignores the thousands of national religious boys and young men who devote their lives both to Torah study and to Israel. It's ironic that Mrs. Schmidt would use the concept of mesiras nefesh with which to bash the religious Zionists. While Mrs. Schmidt says that the literal meaning of mesiras nefesh is "self-sacrifice", a closer definition of the words is to give up one's life. In contrast to all other sectors of Israeli society, a majority of national religious boys and young men volunteer for IDF combat units. They are the ones who have defended Mrs. Schmidt and her family from suicide bombers, all too often giving up their own lives so that Israeli civilians can feel safe going out to a mass gathering celebrating the Siyum Hashas. In contrast, the charedi counterparts of these heroic boys and men use permanent "deferments" from the army. On a July 31, 2003 post on this blog, I wrote, in part: "The IDF is severely undermanned, especially now with thousands of soldiers in Palestinian cities. There is no reason why 40 year old reservists should spend a month in Jenin with a combat unit, while 25 year old charedim avoid the IDF entirely. Indeed, on the army issue the position of the charedi leadership lacks any moral basis, and those of us who are religious - whether charedi or not - should not accept the burden of having to defend it." There are many examples of real mesiras nefesh among the religious Zionist sector; I'll offer one example which is probably fairly typical. I have a friend in Israel, whose parents live in New York. Three years ago, his entire family went to Israel for Pesach for the chance to spend a rare week together. Following the bombing in Netanya on the Seder night, Prime Minister Sharon ordered 20,000 reservists to enlist immediately. I called my friend, who said he didn't have much time to talk, he was called up and had to report to his unit shortly, but had obtained permission from his commander to first spend one day with his parents. He then joined his reserve unit, whose mission was to capture Palestinian terrorists in and around Bethlehem and Hebron. About three weeks later, when Sharon allowed the reservists to go home, I called my friend, who was actually on a bus heading home. He thanked me for calling, but again said that he couldn't talk, because he was too tired after sitting in a tank for days at a time without any sleep. That summer, I visited Israel and attended my friend's engagement party, when he told me that he was very backed up in his graduate school work, having missed more than two weeks of classes while serving in the reserves. Of course, while my friend was battling terrorists in Judea, the charedi participants in Daf Yomi referred to in Mrs. Schmidt's post didn't miss a daf. Mrs. Schmidt has a lot to learn about real mesiras nefesh. Thursday, March 03, 2005
No Pragmatism I usually visit Israel once a year, and one of the many aspects I look forward to is discussing issues relating to Israel with Israelis. Increasingly, I find American Jews take uninformed and often extreme positions. While there obviously are exceptions, among the secular, settlements are all bad, a peace process is always good, and Israel has no business being in "the West Bank." Among the Orthodox, there is a small but vocal minority who take a particularly strident left-wing position and act with the utmost obnoxiousness toward those on the right, as though the mere fact that they hold these views makes them intellectually superior. One such person has, for more than a year each and every time he sees me, ridiculed my first column for The Jewish Press, in which I argued in favor of Israel's right to secure borders, and showed that this required retention of more than 4 percent of Judea and Samaria. The borders proposed by the Clinton Plan are inevitable, he insisted on one such occasion. When I asked him whether, in that case, he accepted that the Old City of Jerusalem will be shared with the Arabs, he said absolutely not, that will have to change. A much larger number of observant Jews in North America are becoming increasingly extreme on the right. Although many support Bush, who is de facto imposing a forced settlement in which Israel will retain very little disputed territory, these people insist that Israel must cede no territory, with Sharon's plan to unilaterally withdraw not only wrong, but essentially evil. There is no room for nuance, for recognition that Israel will have to give up a lot of land but must fight hard to keep whatever it can. There is no understanding that while either would be very painful, keeping 10 percent of Judea and Samaria would be a lot better than keeping 4 percent. It's not easy being ideologically right-wing but politically pragmatic, but the issue is not about me. The tragedy is that the failure to articulate why Israel - while agreeable to territorial compromise - cannot cede as much as the Clinton Plan demanded, might well cause Israel to end up with, at most, the 4 percent proposed by Clinton. What's the difference between 4 percent and 10 percent? It's the difference between destroying all of the Binyamin region, where Beit El, Ofra and Shilo are located, and keeping those areas. It's the difference between further developing Western Samaria and turning Ariel into a real city, or allowing a town of 20,000 and a region of 50,000 Jews to end its role in Jewish history. Those who insist on ideological purity will end up mourning the ruins of Beit El. Some of these people are actually in the position of meeting with Bush and other Republican leaders, yet naively convince themselves that a very obvious trend toward the formation of a Palestinian state on almost all of Judea, Samaria and Gaza (and part of Jerusalem) is not well underway. Jewish Press Column My column in this week's Jewish Press is now online. The column is to a large extent a revised and improved version of my post about Gaza last week. One portion is entirely new - my views on refusal of soldiers to obey orders: It is certainly inappropriate for American Jews to call upon IDF soldiers and reservists to refuse to obey an order to evacuate a Gaza community. Civil disobedience is a legitimate form of protest, but disobedience by a soldier is much more problematic. Perhaps an individual soldier can refuse to carry out orders that are contrary to his deepest values, so long as he accepts the consequences of that decision. Mass refusal is another matter, particularly if it is organized. Whatever one thinks of the Sharon plan and the manner in which it is being implemented, those opposed to the decision will have to live in Israeli society after the withdrawal occurs. Mass refusal would cause the estrangement of mainstream Israel from the religious Zionist sector, and anarchy in an army that is essential to its country's survival. One point that I didn't make but wish I had, is that plenty of IDF soldiers with left-wing views have followed orders to protect communities in Gaza and elsewhere that they may have opposed. Some of these soldiers gave their lives to defend these communities. Wednesday, March 02, 2005
Friends of Neturei Karta Today's Beirut Daily Star reports that Stanley Cohen, the Jewish anti-Semitic attorney for all kinds of terrorists, including Hamas leaders, terrorists who attacked the World Trade Center in 1993, a mastermind of the bombing of the U.S. Embassy in Kenya, among others, is calling upon Arab states to stop providing oil to the U.S. to force the U.S. to accept the "return" of millions of Palestinians to what is now Israel. In the article, Cohen expressed his admiration for Neturei Karta leader "Rabbi" David Weiss, and indeed revealed that it was he who arranged Weiss' visit last week to Beirut. Cohen explained: "I have known Rabbi Weiss from New York's base of Neturei Karta for a number of years and thought he would be exactly the perfect person to participate in a conference about the Palestinian cause." So apparently Neturei Karta not only supports killers of Israelis, they are friendly with supporters of terror around the world. May G-d avenge the blood of the victims, pour out his wrath against the terrorists and their supporters and destroy them. DISCLAIMER: As an attorney myself, I realize that one does not necessarily support the ideology of one's client. Cohen, however, has expressed support for terrorists, and suggested that the Mossad is responsible for 9/11. Siyum Hashas And Charedi Moderation As noted in today's New York Times, Rabbi Yaakov Perlow, the Novominsker rebbe, praised Artscroll last night for its publication of a 73 volume translation of the Talmud. For years, there has been ambivalence in the charedi world toward Artscroll, with many taking the position that it was used as a crutch and prevented Talmud learners from mastering gemara in the original Aramaic. As usual, Rabbi Perlow is a reasonable and pragmatic asset to the charedi world. I am also informed that the prayer for the IDF and its soldiers was said last night. If true, the credit must go to the masses of moderate charedim who have rendered the 19th and early 20th century charedi ideological opposition to Zionism obsolete by recognizing that we now live in a different world and that Israel and its soldiers are to be fully supported. More and more, moderate charedi shuls have been including the prayer for soldiers, including one that I often attend in Kew Gardens Hills, Queens. Indeed, while the ideological battle within observant Judaism over the issue of Zionism has long been irrelevant and indeed absurd, its formal end came on April 15, 2002. On that day, while charedi rabbis were unsure whether or not to support the mass rally for Israel in D.C., many tens of thousands of charedim - in black hats and sheitels - went to Washington on a 90 degree weekday to express their support for Israel. Tuesday, March 01, 2005
Charles Krauthammer On The Fence I just came across Charles Krauthammer's column in last Friday's Washington Post, in which Krauthammer wrote the following: "Both Gaza and the northern West Bank are separated from Israel by fences. Not a single suicide bomber has infiltrated through them. As a result, northern Israel enjoys calm." I don't know what Krauthammer means when writing that nobody has "infiltrated" through the Gaza and northern West Bank fences. I suppose that technically this is true. Nobody has walked right through the fence. And there is no question that the number of suicide bombings originating from Gaza and the northern West Bank is very significantly down, probably by about 95 percent. Early in the Palestinian terror war, most suicide bombers came from northern West Bank cities like Jenin and Nablus. That has definitely changed. However, there have been several instances in which suicide bombers coming from Jenin, Nablus and even Gaza have circumvented the fence, finding alternate routes into Israeli cities. Reb Yudel On The Siyum Hashas Reb Yudel, a/k/a Larry Yudelson, has a very interesting piece on the Siyum Hashas and Daf Yomi on Beliefnet. Bush On The Siyum Hashas Apparently, President Bush will televise a message to those attending the Siyum Hashas tonight. I'm generally not very comfortable with observant Jews mixing too deeply into politics, especially at inherently religious events. It strikes me as reeking of insecurity and a need to be recognized and be made to feel important. On the other hand, perhaps Bush's participation is a kiddush Hashem, a sanctification of G-d's name. In a country in which most Jews remain staunchly secular and many Americans outside the big cities equate being Jewish with being secular, an event attended by masses of observant Jews might be a strong counter to that perception. So I'll reserve judgment on Bush's appearance until details emerge after the Siyum Hashas. UPDATE - 3/2 9:50 A.M.: While I did not attend the Siyum Hashas, our correspondent covering the event at Continental Airlines Arena reports that there in fact was no message from Bush. Ian Eagle From its inception on July 1, 1987 until about a decade later, I was a WFAN junkie, listening often to the world's first 24 hour sports radio station. Since late '97, I've been working and haven't listened to FAN more than occasionally. My favorite WFAN figures were the young kids right out of college. Steve Levy - now of ESPN - and current Nets play-by-play announcer Ian Eagle are among this group. While I certainly didn't know Levy or Eagle well, when I had press access to games in the early 90's, I did meet and talk some sports with them, and both came across as affable and down to earth, unlike some other WFAN figures. For a number of years, Eagle has been the Nets announcer, and he has gotten better and better. He's certainly one the best announcers in sports, and at 36, should remain with the Nets for decades to come. Yesterday, however, Nets owner Bruce Ratner confirmed rumors that Eagle will be demoted to part-time duty in favor of legendary announcer Marv Albert. Albert will call about 50 Nets games, Eagle the rest. I can understand the interest in hiring a well-known figure like Marv Albert and won't lambast Ratner over the move, but it's a bad idea. The Nets need to create their own identity, which will come by winning. Eagle should have had the chance to spend decades with the Nets, just like Albert spent decades calling Knicks games. In today's New York Times, Ratner is quoted as saying, "I hope Marv is with us as long as there's a franchise." Albert is 63 years old; assuming he stays in excellent health and announces until he is 100, does that mean that the Nets franchise will fold in 37 years? In any event, the Nets' foolishness is an opportunity for WFAN. I read and am told that the station's 10-1 slot - the one between Imus and Russo/Francesa - remains awful. That slot has changed hosts more often that the Mets change their 3rd baseman. I would propose that FAN hire Eagle to host that slot. Getting back to Ratner, he is clearly trying to atone for the dismantling of the team last summer. It may take years to undo the damage of taking apart a championship contender. The Vince Carter trade was a step in the right direction, though perhaps had the Nets been patient, they could have obtained Chris Webber with a similar package. In any event, I am going to tone down my anti-Ratner rhetoric for now, but will continue my boycott of Nets home games, a boycott that, in a year without any hockey, has caused me to attend only one Nets game (a road win vs. the Knicks at MSG) and left me with terrible sports withdrawal. If circumstances change, I will reconsider that boycott, but we'll have to wait and see what the Nets do this offseason to improve their inadequate frontcourt. | "
