The Zionist Conspiracy |
|
|
A clandestine undertaking on behalf of Israel, the Jets and the Jews. 
|
Friday, April 29, 2005
MoChassid Blogger MoChassid has announced that he has accepted a high-profile position as General Counsel of what appears to be a non-profit entity. He also has announced that as a result of this new job, "continuing this blog will be very problematic. I will be very much in the public eye in my new job and it would be highly irresponsible of me to keep blogging." MoChassid's departure from the Orthodox blogosphere would be most unfortunate. In a medium dominated by ignorant young men and boys that has increasingly become personally nasty and cynical, 50 year old MoChassid has offered reasoned, polite, respectful and interesting thoughts on various issues including Orthodoxy, baseball and music. I certainly understand that MoChassid's work requirements might significantly limit the amount of blogging he could do, but don't understand why he would have to quit blogging altogether. Even if his new position places him "in the public eve" and he believes many already know who he is, why shouldn't someone in the public eye be able to express his opinion? If anything, MoChassid's public position (and his use of his real name) would result in his views getting a wider platform, and he could be a great asset not only to a small part of the blogosphere, but to the entire observant Jewish world. Thursday, April 28, 2005
Natan Sharansky I'm about half way through The Case For Democracy, the book authored by Natan Sharansky (with Ron Dermer). I'll post my thoughts on the book's central argument after finishing it. Sharansky speaks a heavily accented English, and Dermer did a great job assisting him in writing the book without diluting Sharansky's expression of his views and his many interesting personal anecdotes. It's actually a shame that Sharansky's proficiency in both Hebrew and English is somewhat limited, as he might otherwise be a viable candidate for Prime Minister One aspect of the book is the reflection of Sharansky's deep desire to be seen as a centrist, somewhere between right-wing and left-wing on territorial issues, and between secular and religious on those matters. The reality, of course, is that Sharansky is a right-winger, and while perhaps not fully religiously observant, his sympathies are much closer to the Orthodox than to the secular or Reform Jews. His fairly pro-religious stance on many issues while leading Yisroel B'Aliyah, whose constituents were overwhelmingly secular (and often non-Jewish) Russians is a prime example of Sharansky's views as well as of his personal integrity. Having opposed Oslo, being among Ehud Barak's biggest critics following Barak's egregious concessions at Camp David and Taba, and currently opposing Prime Minister Sharon's plan to unilaterally withdraw from Gaza, Sharansky is clearly a right-winger. While in Prime Minister Netanyahu's cabinet, Sharansky did support Israel's agreement to withdraw from most of Hebron and to cede 13 percent of Judea and Samaria pursuant to the Wye Agreement. But he writes that his vote for the Hebron deal is the biggest regret of his career, and expresses bitterness at President Clinton's failure to keep promises made to Israel at Wye. Unlike those on the far-right, Sharansky does support territorial compromise with a democratically elected peace partner, but in today's world, that does not make him a centrist. Instead of trying to put himself in middle of Israel's political map, he should explain to Israelis and the world why his pragmatic right-wing views (views, incidentally that I strongly share) are correct. That is where his Russian accented Hebrew and English are a significant liability. Sharansky has been a disappointment to Reform Jews and to leftist and "human rights" groups, and he is clearly stung by the criticism he receives from them. Surely, that's where his desire to be seen as a moderate centrist comes from. Three years ago, I attended a conference in Jerusalem organized by the Rabbinical Council of America. It was a star-studded event, with speeches by both Chief Rabbis along with the IDF's chief rabbi, as well as Effie Eitam, Sharansky, Rabbi Shlomo Riskin and Rabbi Berel Wein, among others. Most, though not all, in attendance were observant. About halfway through Wein's speech, suddenly the audience interrupted Wein to stand up and excitedly applaud. They were cheering because Sharansky had walked in, and Sharansky remains a beloved figure in religious Jewish circles. Sharansky spoke next, and told the crowd that while he appreciates the applause, they would not like what he was about to say, and joked that they should have held their applause since they would probably boo when he left. That's what happened a few weeks earlier, he said, at a Reform event. Since his views are not consistent with either those of the Orthodox or the Reform, Sharansky said, both are disappointed in him. After respectfully criticizing the Chief Rabbinate's approach to Russian immigrants to Israel who are non-Jews or of questionable Jewish status, Sharansky was treated to an enormous standing ovation when he finished his speech, with almost everyone spontaneously singing Am Yisroel Chai (the Jewish People Lives) - Shlomo Carlebach's anthem for the struggle for the freedom of Soviet Jewry. Sharansky was clearly moved, though on some level he probably would have preferred to be booed. Charedim and Zionism In an op-ed in The Jerusalem Post (the original JPost link is unavailable), David Flatto, my law school classmate, criticized the lack of mention of Israel at last month's Siyum Hashas. Flatto wrote, in part: I was completely taken aback by the near complete omission of another theme from the speeches on this night. Disturbingly absent from almost all of them was mention of Israel. Let me be clear - I do not refer to Zionism. A haredi-sponsored event clearly will not be colored with blue and white. Rather, I speak of an acknowledgment of the indisputable centrality of Israel for every Jew in the world no matter what his or her religious and political orientation... [Israel] constitutes the focal point of the most basic existential challenges that the Jewish people have faced in the past half-century. Its welfare and security are now synonymous with Jewish survival and rebirth... Any celebration of Jewish survival and rebirth has to describe the seminal role Israel plays in our collective lives and national destiny. The failure of an entire program to acknowledge Israel's distinctive standing in contemporary Jewry is beyond my comprehension. I'm not sure Flatto is right that Zionism is distinct from Israel's dominant role in contemporary Jewish life. In any event, political Zionism, as opposed to the religious Zionism given lip service by most of modern Orthodoxy, is something that most charedi Jews subscribe to and believe in, even if many of them think otherwise. As the Flatto article implicitly notes, little or nothing about Israel - positive or negative - was spoken at the Siyum Hashas. Flatto's shock at the failure of the charedi rabbinical leadership to mention the State of Israel is not surprising, since he has always lived in modern Orthodox communities and attended modern Orthodox schools. For those of us with more exposure to charedi life, it is obvious that the rabbis could not mention Israel because they have no coherent theological position on the State that has any relevance 57 years after Israel's establishment. Outside of Satmar and certain fringe groups, the pre-state anti-Zionism is now moot and obsolete, even if it survives on some sort of irrelevant ideological level. The ideological battles with the State are certainly not completely over, but unlike in Israel's first decade, they are now a fairly marginal issue. Agudah's line is now one of non-Zionism instead of anti-Zionism, something that makes little sense given the realities of the State's daily existence. "Zionism" is still bad, because before the State was formed the rabbis said so, and because Ben Gurion wanted a very secular state and was therefore condemned too. Thus, participation in state related rituals, like serving in the IDF, is out for Israelis, and charedim in America are not to recognize Yom Haatzmaut (Independence Day) and say the prayer for the State. As a result, as one example, the idea of reciting hallel on Yom Haatzmaut is completely alien to charedim. Putting these rituals aside, charedim in America are actually fairly Zionistic, even if most of them would reject the "Zionist" label. They visit Israel, buy apartments there, take strong positions on the future of Judea, Samaria and Gaza, attend pro-Israel rallies, praise the IDF and express contempt for anti-Israel media outlets. They know well, to use Flatto's apt description, "the seminal role Israel plays in our collective lives and national destiny." Thus, while the prayer for the State is out, more and more moderate charedi shuls are reciting the prayer for IDF soldiers. Since the charedi rabbinical leadership (as opposed to individual charedi rabbis) cannot express a nuanced position on Zionism and Israel that appears to renounce the charedi pre-state position, they generally have nothing to say on the matter. Was the mass pro-Israel rally in 2002 kosher? They took no position, though many of their constituents sure did, heading to DC in large numbers. Occasionally they perk up when Justice Barak's Supreme Court issues an objectionable ruling, but generally they offer complete silence. It is in this light that the silence at the Siyum Hashas should be understood. Wednesday, April 27, 2005
Pesach Vacations After eight days without Internet or e-mail access, this morning, upon returning from Florida, I read my father's Cross-Currents post questioning the trend of spending Pesach in hotels. Having just spent the first days of the holiday in a hotel and holding the seders in a Miami Beach restaurant, I read the post with interest. (In my personal defense, I came back to New York in time for chol hamoed and the last days of Pesach, and spent my vacation at the modest Best Western. Furthermore, my wife's position as a medical resident requires her to work a grueling schedule with vacations only during Succos and Pesach.) I certainly agree that seders in hotels (or restaurants) are far from ideal. Even if the Magid portion of the seder is taken seriously, there is inevitably a sense of feeling rushed, especially with waiters hovering everywhere. I went to shul next to the restaurant at which I held the seders, and started immediately at a little before 9 P.M., finishing both nights around 12:20 after rushing through the meal and Nirtzah - the last part of the Hagaddah. That was far earlier than my parents finished their seders, but later than most others convening their seder at the same restaurant. More disturbing is the sense of some that since they are on vacation, the vacation takes precedence over the religious holiday. Many arrive very late to shul, and spend most of their day at the pool. At the hotel at which I davened Sunday morning, the guy next to me read the Sunday New York Times throughout the reading of the Torah portion. A few people walked over to ask him where he was able to obtain the Times. At the same time, I wouldn't broadly condemn those who go away, especially people who use the time to spend time with family and catch up with friends. Done right, Pesach in a hotel can enhance the joy of the holiday without compromising on its central religious aspects. First Game Following my post on the matter two weeks ago, some appear interested in whether I took my four and a half month old son to last week's Mets vs. Marlins game in Miami, so I'm posting this follow-up. After much cajoling and begging, my wife agreed to allow me to take our son to the game, on condition that we would leave without protest from me if he reacted poorly to a large crowd. The baby received lots of attention as I carried him into Dolphins Stadium as he wore his Mike Piazza jersey. Alas, moChassid's warning, that "don't forget that if he gets cranky, he can ruin it for you" was most apt. In the top of the second inning, while the Mets were scoring seven runs, my son was as cranky as Marlins pitcher Al Leiter. All the noise scared him, and he was pulled just before the grand slam homer by Doug Mientkiewicz. It looked like we would have to leave, but a kindly older man working at the stadium took note of the situation, and escorted us to private seats right behind home plate on the club level. As he left us, we thanked him and he responded that if anyone should question why we were sitting there "just say Sam took you here" and wished us "a freilechen Pesach." Unfortunately, a few innings later, I foolishly went out to use the restroom, and could not get back in. For twenty minutes, security insisted that I had to return to my assigned seat or leave the stadium. They also said that nobody named Sam worked in the stadium. Finally, they allowed me (under heavy escort) to pick up my wife and son. Another security guard who had seen Sam take me to the good seats told them to leave us alone, but by then the baby was again tired and moody, so we left a little while later, after Pedro Martinez got the final out of the seventh inning en route to the Mets' 10-1 win. Thursday, April 14, 2005
Bush: Hamas Leaders Just 'Business Professionals' In the latest nonsense from the Bush Administration, White House spokesman Scott McClellan stated that it will not be a problem if Hamas leaders are elected to PA legislative positions since while they are "members of Hamas, they [are] business professionals." Presumably, Bush will also have no problem with loyalists of Saddam Hussein and Abu Musab al-Zarqawi gaining leadership positions in Iraq, as long as they mix business with murder. Also, is there any doubt that al Qaeda members who go to work wearing a suit and tie could do great things for the people of Afghanistan? Wednesday, April 13, 2005
Chananya Weissman On Orthodoxy's Treatment Of BTs I generally find Chananya Weissman's rants against some of the stupid rituals among observant Jews - particularly those related to dating - to be refreshing and on target. Usually Weissman's arguments articulated on behalf of End The Madness - the organization he set up to combat the nonsense associated with dating in some sectors of Orthodoxy - are based on common sense that is somehow lost when it comes to dating rituals. Weissman goes overboard - way overboard - however, in a front/back page piece in this week's Jewish Press. The main premise of the column is that those who are baal teshuva, which in the vernacular refers to people who are observant but were not raised in an observant family, are treated as inferior among the Orthodox. To the extent this argument refers specifically to the shidduch scene, in which people are set up on blind dates, BTs indeed are too often (though certainly not always) deemed to be on a lower scale and accordingly are set up with lower quality counterparts of the opposite gender. Indeed, as I wrote to a BT friend a few days ago in lauding him for reverting to his erstwhile practice of asking girls out directly, "If you rely on married members of a black-hat community to set you up, you will be shortchanged because you are BT and aren't wealthy." The mistreatment of BTs within the shidduch system is, however, one aspect of the problem of that crazy system; there are a myriad of other problems in the shidduch system that Weissman can articulate much better than me. Is it indicative of much more widespread discrimination of BTs within Orthodoxy? Weissman thinks so. He writes: "The ba'al teshuva is to be contrasted with the Frum From Birth ("FFB"), the latter being a far more desirable species of Jew... While ba'alei teshuva are lauded for their return to an observant lifestyle, and even admired for the challenges they must overcome, they never manage to shake the stigma of not being Frum From Birth. This stigma is even transferred to children and the extended family, as if it is a genetic defect of spiritual proportions... The definition of ba'al teshuva as one who was previously less observant and the resulting lower status of those saddled with the term is one of only a few things the myriad splinters of observant Jewry (particularly FFB's) agree upon." Weissman does not know what he is talking about. We can agree that the shidduch system is messed up. Among the serious problems within it is treatment of BTs. But thankfully, there is a real world outside the shidduch system. I have work colleagues who are BT, friends who are BT, friends who were raised frum who married someone who is BT, relatives who married someone who is BT, and relatives who are BT. In 2005, I don't think most people really care who was raised frum and who wasn't, and don't bother keeping track. Weissman's charge that BTs are given a lifetime "stigma" is just not true. As just one example, has anyone ever insinuated that leading blogger and publisher Gil Student of Hirhurim is less worthy of respect because he is BT? If anything, the vast knowledge Gil has obtained despite not being frum from birth is something that is deserving of admiration. Most single observant Jews above their mid-20's who were raised observant would not mind marrying someone who is BT. If the shidduch system discriminates against BTs, blame the shidduch system and try to change or replace it, as Weissman is. But don't falsely malign all of the Orthodox as bigoted idiots. Tuesday, April 12, 2005
Prayer For Rain In light of the growing number of heretical Orthodox bloggers, I humbly submit the following halachic question: We are supposed to pray for rain, but I have tickets to the Mets vs. Marlins game in Miami next Thursday night. If neither team is rained out before then, the matchup is scheduled to be Pedro Martinez against Al Leiter. My four month old son - who has no idea that Pedro has not always been a Met or that Leiter for seven years was - already has his Mike Piazza jersey and is looking forward to attending his first sports event (pending his mother's approval, which has not yet been obtained). Must I recite the prayers for rain with sincerity? Bush and Israel Writing from a left-wing perspective, DovBear ridicules Jews who think President Bush is a great friend to Israel in posts here and here. My political leanings on Israel are what I call pragmatic right-wing, which means ideological support for settlement, while taking into account international, demographic and security realities. DovBear is absolutely right that right-wing Jews who continue to convince themselves that Bush is a great friend to their cause are deluded. I've been arguing this for years, to no avail. One thing that has frustrated me in recent years have been The Jewish Press' editorials in support of Bush's stance toward Israel. Given the JP's far right-wing stance on Israel (my columns are very dovish by JP standards), it is incredible that a President who insists on a Palestinian state, an end to all settlement activity - even in Maaleh Adumim - and who continually calls for a "contiguous" (i.e. Jew free) Palestinian state is so lauded. Bush's bogus promise to move the U.S. embassy in Israel to Jerusalem as his first act as President has apparently been forgiven and forgotten. When Hillary Clinton called for a Palestinian state, she was blasted by the JP. When President Clinton proposed a deal in which Israel would be left with 4 percent of Judea and Samaria and Jerusalem would be divided, he was strongly criticized. Do those on the right really think Bush has a different vision for a final status deal? If so, how can they explain his criticism of construction in Maaleh Adumim? Bush has actually been the first president to stop nearly all new construction in Judea, Samaria and Gaza. The reality is that as a result of Clinton and now Bush, Israel's status with respect to the territory it captured in 1967 is weaker than ever, including in Jerusalem. It may well be, of course, that overall Bush is better for Israel than Clinton was, or than Al Gore or John Kerry would have been. In fact, I think he probably is. But now that Ariel Sharon is often criticized by the right, is Bush so sacrosanct that his negative policies can't be attacked, or at least not be praised in such a foolish and ignorant knee-jerk manner? Incidentally, one of the arguments against Bush by a commenter on DovBear's site is that many more Israelis have died during Bush's term than during Clinton's eight years. For that reason alone, the person argues, Bush and Sharon have been awful for Israel. That argument is too stupid to be worthy of a response. I suppose the person who posted that comment also thinks that Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Abraham Lincoln were the worst Presidents in American history given the death tolls during the Civil War and World War II. The Settlers' Mistake A few days ago, Yesha Council leader Pinchas Wallerstein called for massive non-violent civil disobedience in a last-ditch effort to prevent the dismantling of communities in Gaza and northern Samaria. Regarding the possible outbreak of violence, Wallerstein conceded that massive protests intended to be peaceful could turn ugly. "We are in a situation of damned if I do, and damned if I don't," Wallerstein said. Even if I supported the Sharon plan - which I don't - I would still want the residents who are being evicted to protest. It's appropriate and necessary, even if it would only in essence be a ritual. Nevertheless, I fear that the entire approach of the Yesha leadership is faulty. Opposition to withdrawals and destruction of Jewish communities in disputed territory should not primarily be based upon creating fear by showing the costs of those withdrawals. The better strategy would be to try to convince Israelis (and secondarily, in this order, diaspora Jews, America, and the world) that there are benefits to having Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria and for Israel to retain part of that territory. When it comes to places like Maaleh Adumim and Gush Etzion, the overwhelming majority of Israelis are convinced. When it comes to Ariel, a slightly smaller majority is on board. When it comes to places like Hebron and Beit El, most Israelis would like to keep those areas, but are unsure whether and how that would be possible if a Palestinian state is formed and recognized. Other more isolated communities have less support. More important than protests, the job of the Yesha Council is to advocate for the permanent incorporation of the communities in Judea and Samaria into Israel. They will have an easier time advocating on behalf of certain communities than others, but this is what they need to be doing. Ultimately, if Israelis don't think it's worth keeping a particular community, that community is doomed, even if the perception among the Israeli masses about what can be given up is based on ignorance. In contrast, if Israelis see a particular area as part of Israel, as is the case with Maaleh Adumim, then President Bush's criticisms of construction there is rendered almost moot. Father Thomas Dowd on Catholics and Jews In an over-the-top tribute to the "first Pope with the courage to stop hating us," Chakira suggests that "we should all learn Torah in the next thirty days in his memory." Of more interest to me are comments to Chakira's post by a Father Thomas Dowd. Among other points he makes, Dowd calls for theological dialogue between Jews and Catholics because "for us Christians, the most frequently consulted source of information we have about Judaism was written over 1900 years ago in a time of conflict ... we need to discern what to keep as is and what to adapt -- and that is a process internal to Christianity with which a theological contribution from Jews can help. Even only minimal theological dialogue, the kind simply designed to help modern Christians understand modern Judaism, can at least help us avoid presenting a caricature of Judaism in our sermons." Rabbi Soloveitchik, of course, opposed theological dialogue, and charedi rabbis wouldn't even consider the possibility of sanctioning such dialogue. In what is probably a futile response (at least to Orthodox Jews) to Rabbi Soloveitchik, Dowd acknowledges that there will "be Christians of the type Rabbi Soloveitchik warns, the type who want to use 'dialogue' as a deceptive tool of conversion" but calls for individual Jews and Christians to talk about theological matters. What I find especially interesting is Dowd's statement that modern Christians need dialogue to understand modern Judaism. If it's really the case that Christians are so ignorant and so curious about us, it seems to be that simple Internet searches would achieve Dowd's goal, as would a visit to a book store. Dowd's point about conversion seems to indicate that proselytization during dialogue would be off-limits, though if proselytization is central to Catholicism, his argument seems questionable. On a personal note, when I was a summer associate at a large law firm in 1996, there was a very frum Catholic junior associate who I was friendly with. He repeatedly made sure to tell me that he was praying for my soul. I was not really bothered either by his proselytization or by his apparent belief that I was headed for eternal damnation and in any event figured that hell had be better than life at a large law firm. Rachel's Tomb Speaking of Rachel's Tomb, which is located just inside Bethlehem and just south of Jerusalem, recently I read a description of how beautiful the complex now looks. Perhaps the complex is more aesthetically pleasing now, but it's also a fortress. Personally, I think it's sad that one must enter a very heavily secured area to pray at Rachel's Tomb. During a visit to Israel in the early 1990's, I took a bus to Rachel's Tomb, walked about a block and prayed for about 45 minutes. There were probably two, maybe three IDF soldiers there. When I was done, I waited for the public bus across the street, where Arabs walked around. With my kippa on, I walked into an Arab-owned store, and bought a Diet Coke. It's not as though things were so peaceful back then. It's just that the Palestinians hadn't yet been given arms. State Department Travel Warning II My last post was perhaps too cynical about the State Department's revised advisory regarding travel to Israel. The State Department urges Americans to avoid "crowded public places, such as restaurants and cafes, shopping and market areas and malls, pedestrian zones, public transportation of all kinds, including buses and trains and their respective stations/terminals, and the areas around them." I had initially thought that this limited a visitor to his or her hotel room, but upon further reflection, I realize that the State Department has no problem with visiting burial places in Israel. Of course, that does not include Rachel's Tomb in Bethlehem or the Cave of the Patriarchs in Hebron, since the West Bank is still to be completely avoided. But if one wants to head north over to Amukah or Meron or any of the other holy Jews buried in the Safed area, it seems as though Condi Rice is fine with that. Friday, April 08, 2005
State Department Travel Warning According to an AP report, the State Department has apparently softened its travel warning to Israel and what it calls "the Occupied Territories." Unfortunately, if one were to heed the updated travel warning, a visit to Israel wouldn't be much fun. Our State Department advises that "American citizens should stay away from demonstrations and generally avoid crowded public places, such as restaurants and cafes, shopping and market areas and malls, pedestrian zones, public transportation of all kinds, including buses and trains and their respective stations/terminals, and the areas around them." Surprisingly, the State Department does not advise against taking cabs, which of course are far more dangerous than buses. I'm looking forward to my next trip, in which I shall arrive at Ben Gurion Airport, take a taxi to a hotel, and stay in my hotel room until I leave, when I shall take a taxi back to Ben Gurion Airport. As for the reference to Judea, Samaria and Gaza as "the Occupied Territories", it is not consistent with the historic position of the State Department. For example, when Secretary of State James Baker was asked about the status of Judea, Samaria and Gaza, he responded, "They're clearly disputed territories. That's what Resolutions 242 and 338 are all about. They're clearly disputed territories." Similarly, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright stated: "We simply do not support the description of the territories occupied by Israel in the 1967 as occupied Palestinian territory." The good news, of course, is that none of this matters, since President Bush is the most pro-Israel president in history. I think I even heard that in shul. Love at the New York Times Am I the only one who senses romance in the air after reading Robin Finn's glowing, heartwarming tribute to Columbia professor Joseph Massad in today's New York Times? Massad is the Columbia professor charged with verbally abusing and intimidating students who dared to challenge his stridently anti-Israel classroom statements. Ms. Finn helpfully tells us that Massad is a "Christian fellow who began holding Seders as an undergraduate in Albuquerque (he had a Jewish roommate)." At that point, Finn takes us to another world, the world of the Times' Sunday Styles section, which celebrates the marriages (and commitment ceremonies) of our elite. Finn writes: He seems, if anything, ingratiating, not intimidating. The perfect host, perfectly attired, right down to the opalescent links binding his French cuffs. The reading material on his coffee table is decorative propaganda, apolitical: "The World Atlas of Wine"; a pictorial of a favored destination, Amberley Castle in Sussex, England; and a catalog in which he excitedly points out the brass chandelier, a handmade reproduction of 18th-century Islamic/Egyptian design, he recently purchased in Cairo. What a novelty: a politically pugnacious professor - he insists he won't stand for anti-Semitism or anti-Palestinianism in his classroom and packs scholarship to combat both - with a metrosexual gloss. Forgive me, I don't know what a "metrosexual gloss" is. But I am nevertheless transfixed. Getting back to those bad Jews who are bothering Massad, the article continues: "I am simply an entry point for right-wing forces that want to destroy academic freedom," says Professor Massad, his eyes telegraphing hurt and anger behind black-framed glasses. "My crime is not only that I'm Palestinian. What galls them most is that I'm a pro-Jewish Palestinian critic of Zionism." Such sad eyes to go along with his black-framed glasses and french cuffs. And I know just how Massad feels, being a pro-Arab Jewish critic of terrorism. Massad is such a great guy that though his class is "crashed by hecklers", since "Professor Massad is a fan of free speech, [the hecklers] are allowed to have their say." Getting back to Finn's infatuation with Massad, we are told that "in Jordan, he attended a French-run school - he is multilingual" and that "his demibeard is neatly sculptured. His Continental accent is more soothing than strident. His elaborate freestanding Egyptian water pipe is stoked with apple-flavored tobacco as a weekend indulgence, accompanied by Cognac, after dinner parties. Only legal substances are imbibed." Finn could hardly be blamed. Who could avoid becoming infatuated with such a Renaissance man? Wednesday, April 06, 2005
Sharon's Silence Today's New York Times reports that in a meeting yesterday with Gaza residents slated for eviction, Prime Minister Sharon said: "I understand it is difficult for you. I'm trying to save the land of Israel. I know this is at your expense." The Times adds that "one settler wept, and Mr. Sharon reportedly told him: 'I was moved by your words and was also close to tears. Disengagement is a harsh blow for me, but I had to make the decision.'" Sharon still has never explained why unilateral withdrawal from Gaza and northern Samaria is necessary. Some believe the rationale is demographics. Perhaps, but that what about Sharon's recent statements that no further unilateral withdrawals will take place, and that: "The Jewish settlements in places such as Tel Rumeida, Hebron, Beit El, Shilo and Maaleh Adumim - is vital. No one can remove them from us. We have foregone part of the dream - but not all of the dream." If unilateral withdrawal is necessary to save the Land of Israel, why should that withdrawal include only and particularly Gaza and northern Samaria, and no place else? Perhaps Sharon's statements about Hebron, Beit El and Shilo are cynically designed to calm supporters of retention of those places. If that's the case, is there anything Sharon says that can be believed? It's one thing to change one's mind, and another to cynically lie to one's own constituents. Israel's Next War Last night, PBS's Frontline broadcast a one-hour film called Israel's Next War. The film was purportedly about "religious right-wing extremists who are girding for battle to stop Ariel Sharon's plan to withdraw from Gaza." In fact, the film has nothing to do with the Gaza withdrawal. Instead, it deals with two topics: the small underground of Jewish terrorists, and the establishment of outposts on hilltops in Judea and Samaria. I am certainly not one to lesson the danger of Jewish extremists. Prime Minister Rabin was murdered by one, and seven Palestinians have been murdered by Jewish terrorists over the last five years. But Israel's Next War takes on an ominous tone that exaggerates the scope of the importance of the extremists. While every murder is vile, the fact that only seven Arabs have been killed (as opposed to more than 1000 Israelis) is clear evidence that the Jewish terror network is comprised of a handful of crazies supported by perhaps a few hundred or at most a couple of thousand passive ideological sympathizers. They are a tiny minority even among "settlers." In an interview on Frontline's website, the filmmaker, Dan Setton, concedes that "in the film I'm focusing on the zealots" but the "zealots" are not representative of most "settlers." I wonder if we'll ever see a film on PBS or another major media outlet that portrays typical Jewish life in Judea, Samaria and Gaza. Would it be too boring? I don't think so. The closest I've seen to that was in December 2001 on MSNBC, when Gregg Jarrett (then an MSNBC anchor, now on Fox) visited Efrat for a one-hour program. Jarrett seemed surprised at how Efrat looked, commenting that it reminded him of Palm Beach. He also informed viewers that Efrat is really a "re-settlement" since Jews had lived there prior to being expelled by the Arabs in 1948. (Actually, Jews did not live in Efrat, though they did live in the Gush Etzion region before Jordan ransacked those settlements and murdered its inhabitants in '48.) Azure Azure, the independent Israeli journal published in both English and Hebrew by the Shalem Center, has expanded its website, which now includes a great deal of current and archived material. The material published by Azure and by the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs are essential reads. Dore Gold, Foreign Ambassador to United Nations and author of Tower of Babble and Hatred's Kingdom, heads JCPA. Tuesday, April 05, 2005
Leave Omar Alone II We all make mistakes. Some people believe it's best to assess one's mistakes to ensure that similar mistakes do not recur. Mets GM Omar Minaya, however, feels that dwelling on the past is a bad idea. For example, on Friday, Mets pitcher Kris Benson - who makes $8 million a year to split his seasons between the pitching mound and the disabled list - felt tightness in his pectoral muscle. On Saturday night, the Mets traded Benson's only suitable replacement, Matt Ginter, for a non-prospect. Yesterday, Benson was placed on the disabled list and is out indefinitely. As Newsday reports, when asked yesterday whether trading Ginter was still a good idea, Minaya responded, "I don't think back to what we did at that time." I completely agree with Omar. One should never think back more than 24 hours. Leave Omar Alone Mets GM Omar Minaya is a very busy man. He can't be expected to know that New York's Time Warner customers - including most residents of Manhattan and Queens - can't watch most Mets games because Cablevision won't allow Time Warner to show them unless it pays a ransom. As today's New York Post reports: Mets General Manger Omar Minaya said he wasn't even aware the game wasn't on TV for the 2.4 million New Yorkers who have Time Warner Cable. "It's too bad, because they missed a great performance by Pedro [Martinez], 12 strikeouts," he said. Millions of New Yorkers can't watch the Mets? Whatever. Minaya has more important things to be concerned with, such as the huge recent announcement that Banco Popular is now the official bank of the New York Mets. As a Mets fan and someone who has a bank account, this is great news all around. Minaya has also been consumed with an ambitious goal of ridding the Mets of any and all vestiges of the 2000 pennant winning team. He succeeded in getting rid of all remnants of the 2000 club except for Mike Piazza - and he sure tried to trade Piazza. In his most recent coup, Minaya released Subway Series vet Joe McEwing, who last season hit .254, and replaced him with Marlon Anderson, who hit .237 in 2004. Monday, April 04, 2005
Same Old Mets The Mets bullpen is in fine mid-season form, blowing a three run lead when Pedro Martinez left the game by giving up four runs in two-plus innings, including three runs on two homers by Mets "closer" Braden "Armando" Looper. Looper might be confused and think that a closer's job is to end the game as quickly as possible regardless of who wins, which would explain why he required just 14 pitches (and no outs) to put an end to the game, albeit for the Reds. Before the game, the Mets put Kris Benson - who makes $8 million a year and for whom Ty Wigginton and several prospects were sacrificed for - on the disabled list. Benson is out indefinitely. Now that the Mets sent Matt Ginter away for nothing, they are left without a suitable replacement for Benson. Sunday, April 03, 2005
Pope John Paul II My initial thoughts on the passing of Pope John Paul II are that from a Jewish perspective, it is essential to view the Pope both as a historic figure and as a world leader over the last 26 years. From a historic perspective, Pope John Paul II has continued the positive path started by Pope John XXIII. After so many centuries of Christian - and particularly Catholic - brutality against Jews, the last half century has seen a radical shift from Catholicism's leadership. There are areas such as beatification controversies, the Holocaust and the role of Pope Pius XII that remain deeply problematic, but those are best left for another day. There can be no doubt that on both a theological level and on a human level, the relationship between Christians and Jews worldwide has changed for the better during the time that the Pope led the Catholic Church. As a world leader, the Vatican under Pope John Paul II finally recognized Israel, and the Pope visited Israel a few years ago. But shortly thereafter, the Pope said nothing while Syrian dictator Bashar Assad told him, referring to "the Jews": "They tried to kill the principles of all religions with the same mentality in which they betrayed Jesus Christ and the same way they tried to betray and kill the Prophet Mohammed." The Pope's failure to say anything would not be so troubling if the Vatican had supported Israel's defense against Arab fanatics like Assad. But alas, the Vatican remained pro-Arab even during the terror war launched by Yasser Arafat. Even when Fatah terrorists seized the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem in 2002 and held its clergy hostage, the Vatican would not criticize Arafat or the Palestinians. And amid all the condemnations of the Holocaust, the Pope awarded knighthood to former UN Secretary General Kurt Waldheim in 1994, with whom he had a long-standing close relationship. By 1994, Waldheim's Nazi war crimes were well documented, and he was barred from entering the United States. Overall, the Pope's contributions as the spiritual leader of the Catholic Church to a rapprochement between Judaism and Catholicism are likely more important than his shortcomings as a world political leader. But any honest assessment of Pope John Paul II that is taken from a Jewish perspective must examine all aspects of his reign. The New Mets As if getting rid of both Vance Wilson and Jason Phillips in favor of Ramon (.132 in 2004, .212 career) Castro wasn't bad enough, Omar Minaya and Willie Randolph have now gotten rid of the two best performing pitchers this spring training. Amazingly, Minaya and Randolph have managed to take a bad bullpen and make it much worse. First, the Mets sent Heath Bell to AAA, despite a very strong spring. Bell pitched okay (3.33 ERA) last year, and deserves a chance to prove he can pitch in the majors. Then last night, the Mets traded Matt Ginter to the Tigers. Ginter had pitched 14 shutout innings this spring after adding a third pitch. Last season, Ginter started 14 games for the Mets and posted a 4.54 ERA. Ginter was traded for Steve Colyer, who had a 6.47 ERA last season. Is Minaya unaware that a low ERA is preferable? Ginter, in my view, should have been the Mets fifth starter, with Phillips staying as backup catcher, and Kaz Ishii - who was acquired for Phillips - staying in LA. Ishii may be more talented than Ginter, but he had a 4.71 ERA last season, and only managed to pitch 5.5 innings per start. Kris Benson, who is making around $8 million a year, had a 4.31 ERA last year, while Victor Zambrano had a 4.37 ERA to go with his bad elbow. The rationale for getting rid of Ginter is that he's out of options and could not be sent to the minors. But why would the Mets want to send Ginter down? He and Bell are far better than several pitchers who somehow made the roster, including Felix Heredia, who followed up a 2004 season in which had a 6.28 ERA with an equally horrible spring; 40 year old Roberto Hernandez, who had a 4.76 ERA last season and presumably is not throwing harder with age; Manny Aybar, who last pitched in the big leagues in 2003, when his ERA was an even 6.00 and who has a career ERA of 5.05; Mike Matthews, who posted a 6.30 ERA last season; and finally, Dae-Sung Koo, who is 35 years old, has never pitched in the majors, and who had a 4.32 ERA in a Korean league, where he had a 24-34 career record. Heredia, Hernandez, Aybar, Matthews, and Koo are all "New Mets" signed or acquired by Minaya. My prediction for the 2005 Mets: 79-83, fourth place. Carlos Beltran is a very good player, but as he showed in Kansas City, he can't turn a team around alone. Pedro Martinez is an upgrade over Al Leiter, but with a horrible bullpen, the Mets are not contenders. Friday, April 01, 2005
I started this blog almost two years ago, when there were very few observant Jewish bloggers. These days there are probably hundreds. This site is anything but unique, and offers little that is original. (UPDATE: I'll leave the question of whether the last sentence is accurate to others.) I very much appreciate all those who visited this blog over the last 23 months. The good news is that I'm not completely leaving the blogosphere. Instead, this site will now focus exclusively on the New York Jets, specifically, the trials and tribulations of the troubled life of one very frustrated fan of the Jets. Hope you stick around. I am very pleased to report that I just received an e-mail from Jason Maoz, senior editor of the Jewish Press. Jason agrees with my decision, and has asked that I begin covering the Jets for the Jewish Press. As of the end of Passover, I will be taking over the Machberes feature from Gershon Tannenbaum, and instead of material about chasidic life, Machberes will feature tidbits about the Jets, heard exclusively in mikvahs around town. The move is consistent with the new innovative style of the Jewish Press, including a new animated feature about the life and times of Vashti. Apparently the above post was based on an April Fools prank/misunderstanding. Only after visiting several mikvahs for the latest Jets gossip was this learned. The Guy In The Glass Many readers are pleading with me not to radically alter the blog that they have been so avidly reading since May 8, 2003. It's hard for me to express in words why I have decided as I have. Perhaps the following poem will be a better mode of explanation. It was recited on January 3, 2000 by a man named Bill, who is now employed in Dallas: When you get what you want in your struggle for pelf, And the world makes you King for a day, Then go to the mirror and look at yourself, And see what that guy has to say. For it isn't your Father, or Mother, or Wife, Who judgement upon you must pass. The feller whose verdict counts most in your life Is the guy staring back from the glass. He's the feller to please, never mind all the rest, For he's with you clear up to the end, And you've passed your most dangerous, difficult test If the guy in the glass is your friend. You may be like Jack Horner and "chisel" a plum, And think you're a wonderful guy, But the man in the glass says you're only a bum If you can't look him straight in the eye. You can fool the whole world down the pathway of years, And get pats on the back as you pass, But your final reward will be heartaches and tears If you've cheated the guy in the glass. Thank You Many people have left comments basically saying, "come on, just stop being a Jets fan. How ridiculously obsessed with one team can you be?" Thank you to everyone who left comments on my posts. Even though there is nothing that anyone can do to change my situation (other than massage Chad Pennington's shoulder) it is nice to know that there are sympathetic people reading my words. I was worried that when I start getting comments they would be something like "This is why I hate the Jets" or "Come on just become a Patriots fan already" or perhaps "You should say more Psalms." I am so very happy that this has not been the case. Almost everyone has been thoughtful and kind. Thank you. I have already written the next few posts, I wrote them before I saw the comments that have already been written. I worry that it will seem like I am just complaining. How many ways are there to say that being a Jets fan is difficult? Then again I think it is important to express this. It is important for football fans everywhere to understand. It is important for me to have a means of expression and it is important for other Jets fans who might be reading this to know they are not alone. It is important for me to know I am not alone. Three Years Relived I knew it was time to start this new phase in this blog a few days ago, when, leaving a kosher restaurant following lunch, I saw a person who I hadn't seen in person for almost 10 years. I had been aware of what this guy has been doing over the years, since he's well known in the NFL community. But to finally come across someone who came into my life with such promise, and then disappeared after three tumultuous years without the Super Bowl he promised, came as a shock from which I haven't fully recovered. He was a quarterback, and had been to his own Super Bowl with his previous team, but it was in 1993 that this person, let's call him Boomer, came to the Jets. I was 20 then, and things seemed to be going so well. He threw for 3421 and 16 touchdowns. He led the Jets to an 8-5 start, and we all thought he was the one. But just like that, he and the Jets lost the last three games and didn't even make the playoffs. After not seeing him for months, in 1994 he suddenly reappeared. And again, he charmed his way to a 6-5 start. I'll never forget the November 27th, 1994 afternoon I went to see him. The Jets were playing the Dolphins, and had a big lead, 24-6 in the 3rd quarter. A win would put them in first place. But then suddenly he just left, right in middle of the game. Not literally - he was still standing there, but he was throwing the football to the Miami players. And then, when on Dan Marino's fake spike, Miami won the game with seconds left in the clock right in front of my end zone seat, he was nowhere to be found. The 1994 Jets never won another game, and I didn't see him again until 1995. '95 was awful and it would have been better for both of us if "Boomer" had just got his separate way prior to that year. Maybe it wasn't all Boomer's fault; this guy Kotite came around then and let's just say didn't help matters. The whole year was a disaster. The next thing I knew, it was really over, and Boomer was moving all the way to Arizona. Seeing Boomer in person the other day brought this all back. And I suddenly realized then and there, that I am 32 years old, and in my entire lifetime, my team has never been to the Super Bowl. This is my primal scream. Why A Jets Fan I guess if anyone ever finds this blog their first question will be "why in the world are you (still) a Jets fan?" So I'll start with that. But first you have to understand why I became a Jets fan in the first place. I did not grow up in an environment where being a Jets fan was expected of anyone. When I was young not everyone was actually a Jets fan. Some were, and some thought it was silly, and became Giants fans, or, chas v'shalom, a Cowboys fan. There is even a frum person who became a Kansas City Chiefs fan even though he has never been to Kansas City. It's not for me to judge everyone's alternative lifestyle. Most who were Jets fans were Jets fans by default, because they didn't know enough other teams who they could root for. Growing up sheltered in Boro Park, the Jets were all I knew. Every Sunday the Jets would play, and my father would have an argument with them. Especially this guy Ward. Every time the Jets got get a first down, it seemed like Ward was holding someone and the play was called back. I didn't know then that the Jets were so abusive and self-centered, and, frankly, so stupid. I was young and naive, and they were always making all kinds of promises, only to betray me in the end. | "
