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

 
Meet The Mets

Last night's Mets game was the first I can remember having attended at which the team's theme song, Meet The Mets, was not played just prior to the game. Instead, some hip-hop music was played. Last night was my first trip to Shea this season, so perhaps new GM Omar Minaya has discontinued the tradition of playing Meet The Mets. Since there was a rain delay last night, it's possible that the omission of Meet The Mets was an aberration.

Meet The Mets is admittedly sort of a stupid song, but replacing it with hip-hop is not cool.

The original 1962 version and the 1984 version of the song can both be listened to here (scroll down).

The 1984 version of the song reminds me of the Mets of the mid and late 80's, when it was played regularly before and after games on WHN and then on WFAN.

The other day, I realized that I'm getting old when a teenager asked why Mets announcer Howie Rose is now on the radio. "Wasn't he always on TV?" the youngster queried.

Oy. As Mets fans as old as me surely know, Howie was the host of Mets Extra from the '86 playoffs through the early '90's, and also hosted a talk-show on WFAN from that station's inception. During its first few years, Mets Extra was on for 90 minutes before and 90 minutes after Mets games, accounting for my poor performance as a high school student.
posted on 6/30/2005

 
Israel As A Spectator Sport

Gil has an interesting post about the halachic aspects of attendance at spectator sporting events. I have commented to that post, and may post further thoughts here once the discussion over at Hirhurim runs its course.

Obviously, I am both a big sports fan, as well as a particular fan of the New York Jets, New York Mets, New Jersey Nets and New York Rangers. I think it's far to say that being a sports fan in itself - i.e., having an interest in watching professional sporting events - is not irrational, but that actually having an emotional interest in whether a group of men wearing a particular uniform wins or loses is irrational. On that basis, my level of interest in the Jets, Mets, Nets and Rangers is quite irrational.

Given that I am a big sports fan, and an irrational one at that, I believe I can sense similar forms of irrationality in others. One such form of irrationality that I have observed pertains to the manner in which many observant Jews in North America relate to the State of Israel's conflict with the Arabs, particularly the Palestinians. I believe many observant Jews view Israel as I view the teams that I root for, and I find this form of irrationality to be both dangerous and offensive.

In light of what the Jewish people went through over the last 2000 years - culminating with the Holocaust - pride, excitement and emotional attachment to the events relating to Israel are perfectly rational. The establishment of Israel and the Six Day War are both seminal events in Jewish history, and Israel's transformation of an empty land into a First World state has been an incredible feat. It would be irrational not to have an emotional interest in what goes on in Israel.

Still, too many people relate to Israel just like a huge sports fan relates to the teams he roots for. They want to win, to defeat the opponent, and to proclaim that "we're number 1." They criticize decisions of Israel's leaders like Jets fans criticize decisions by the Jets' offensive coordinator. There is no sense among these people that real lives are at stake in this spectator sport.

(It should be noted that while in this post I am primarily criticizing observant Jews with far right-wing sentiments, much of the criticism pertains to non-observant Jews with left-wing sentiments.)

On the night that Prime Minister Rabin was murdered, I remember one person saying that "we will get rid of Peres next." That statement is so sickening that I would like to believe that nobody else holds or held similar feelings, though I have reason to believe that a significant minority of observant Jews felt similarly. What is worse, though, is that these are not, generally, evil people. To them, "getting rid of" Rabin is probably not that much different than getting rid of a poor manager or coach, like ex-Mets manager Art Howe, is to me.

I remember attending the bris of a friend's son on September 4, 1997. The bris was in the late afternoon; earlier in the day, a triple suicide bombing by Hamas killed and wounded scores of Israelis in Jerusalem's Ben Yehuda pedestrian mall. While eating the traditional meal following the bris, one person asked whether Prime Minister Netanyahu said that "we are going to go to war." Others agreed with him, that "we have to go to war and show them."

I don't think this was at all unique. Many people in America view Israel as "we" and call on Israel and Israelis to take action because "we" have to show "them".

There is an incredible amount of hypocrisy in much of this. In 2001-02, at the height of the Palestinian terror war (please do not call a terror war an "intifada"), many observant Jews were demanding strong military actions against the PA and Yasser Arafat. Yet at the same time, many of these people declined to even visit Israel, and many had their children studying in Israel fly home to the U.S. "We" apparently has its limits, one of which is that not only do "we" not serve in the IDF or live in Israel, many of us do not even visit Israel when it is deemed to be unsafe.

I know one person who rails that Israel must never make territorial concessions. The Gaza withdrawal is, in his view, practically evil. Yet when it comes to his own children, they are absolutely never to go across the 1967 border. No visits to Gaza, no visits to Hebron and Beit Lehem, no visits - based on the literal demands he makes - even to the Golan or the Western Wall in Jerusalem's Old City.

I believe there are many people just like this. Of course, not everyone is so simplistic, so hypocritical, but for many, there is no sense that keeping all of Judea, Samaria and Gaza may not be possible for political, diplomatic and demographic purposes; that military operations, while sometimes necessary, have to be carefully considered given that there likely will be casualties; and that war therefore is not a preferred approach unless other options don't exist.

Does this mean that American Jews have no business expressing an opinion on Israel? In some limited respects, I believe the answer is yes. I think U.S. Jews calling upon IDF soldiers to refuse orders is appalling. I believe the recent demonstration in New York against Prime Minister Sharon (even if that was not its intent, that is how - predictably - it was spun by the media) was disgraceful.

For the most part, however, people are free to express their views. But they must do so with some humility. For those of us outside Israel, who are not serving in the IDF or sending our children to the IDF, we must not express opinions relating to Israel based on emotion without very carefully considering all of the costs and benefits, and carefully analyzing the nuances of the situation.

Hillel Halkin once wrote in The Jerusalem Report that most non-Israelis have no business expressing any opinion on Israel. The ones who have a right to state their views, he wrote, are those who are up in middle of the night, tossing and turning in angst over what the best course for Israel to take is. I think Halkin is absolutely right, and I have tried to live up to that standard when expressing my opinion about the issues facing Israel.

Israel is not a sports team, and its conflict with the Arabs is not a spectator sport. Those who are not direct participants in the conflict should take that into account when they root for an Israeli victory in the conflict.
posted on 6/29/2005

 
Sharon's Silence

I have consistently criticized Prime Minister Sharon's failure to offer any substantive rationale for his decision to unilaterally withdraw from Gaza, and particularly, the fact that he announced his plan in an interview with Haaretz's Yoel Marcus, rather than in a national television address to his citizens.

On the left, there has long been smug satisfaction for Sharon's approach, including his refusal to publicly explain and debate his radical political shift.

Now, however, Israeli support for the withdrawal is thinning, and the left is becoming concerned.

In today's Haaretz editorial, the newspaper expresses concern that "the settlers have taken the initiative. They determine the evacuation agenda, the level of violence, and even the interpretation of events, via well-spoken and intransigent spokespeople."

Haaretz therefore calls upon Sharon to "establish a more persuasive public relations campaign" in favor of unilateral withdrawal. It laments that Sharon has not "appeared before the public more often" and "sat in the television studio and explained why staying in Gaza was not advisable."

Previously, Haaretz expressed no misgivings concerning Sharon's refusal to get into a detailed discussion about why Israel should unilaterally withdraw from Gaza. Only now, when it believes that a PR campaign in favor of withdrawal is necessary to advance the left's political interests, has Haaretz criticized Sharon's failure to appear before the public.
posted on 6/28/2005

 
Ari Shavit's New Strategy

In a long feature in Friday's Haaretz magazine section, Ari Shavit calls for a new strategy to deal with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Shavit's premise is that the "occupation" and the Arab threat to destroy Israel must both end. The threat, he points out, came before the "occupation" and therefore the "occupation" cannot end unilaterally, before the existential threat does. Yet, the "occupation" only increases Arab hatred for Israel, which surely does not reduce the threat to Israel.

Shavit writes:

Even though there is ostensibly worldwide recognition that Israel is a threatened country, that recognition is not translated into concrete policy positions. While the international community is united in a decisive demand to end the occupation (of the Palestinians), it does not put forward a similarly decisive demand to lift the threat (from the Israelis). The incongruence between the adamance of the demand regarding the occupation and the laxness of the stand regarding the threat creates a dangerous situation. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict rests on two pillars. It is impossible to address the one without addressing the other. It is impossible to terminate the occupation without removing the threat - the two are interlocked.

Shavit explains that for years the international community believed that peace would end both the "occupation" and the threat, but the Palestinian rejection of a two-state solution in 2000-01 and the ensuing Palestinian terror shows that peace is very unlikely to be attained in the present generation.

Therefore, according to Shavit, "new thinking is needed now. There is an urgent need for a new overall strategy."

Shavit's strategy is as follows: If Israel agrees to withdraw from "80 to 90 percent of the West Bank" and evacuate tens of thousands of Israeli "settlers", with a Palestinian state to be established in those areas, Israel would have "the right to make certain demands from the international community. It has the right to demand that its withdrawal line be recognized as a line of self-defense, from inside of which Israel is entitled to exercise its right to protect itself."

Shavit's strategy is a pipe dream. If Israel withdraws from "only" 80 or even 90 percent of Judea and Samaria, terrorism would continue and the international world - with the support of some leftist Israelis - would call for a complete withdrawal. Regardless of whether Israel would have "the right to make certain demands from the international community," those demands would be ignored.

Shavit is right, however, that new thinking for a new overall strategy is needed. Consideration is essential of solutions other than the unrealistic two-state solution, including the idea of a Jordanian-Palestinian confederation, which, prior to Oslo, was the potential political solution most favored by the mainstream Israeli left.
posted on 6/28/2005

 
Stuart Schoffman's Soup

In his column in the current issue of The Jerusalem Report, Stuart Schoffman laments "eating a hearty bowl of soup as Palestinians go hungry."

Presumably Schoffman is implicitly expressing Israeli guilt for the Palestinian plight, one of the pathologies of, as he puts it, "the leftist intelligentsia with whom I identify."

Never mind that the Palestinians caused their own misery by refusing a two-state partition in 1947-1948 and again in 2000-01, and have murdered masses of Israelis, including in Schoffman's German Colony neighborhood, at Cafe Hillel.

Never mind also that within walking distance of the German Colony section of Jerusalem, many of Schoffman's fellow Jews - along with hundreds of thousands of others throughout Israel - also go hungry as Schoffman eats "a hearty bowl of soup."
posted on 6/28/2005

 
The Boycott Is (Probably) Over

I have a good feeling that the New Jersey Nets are back on the right track. I like what I'm hearing from Nets CEO Rod Thorn and GM Ed Stefanski. While the damage from the Kenyon Martin giveaway remains massive and likely renders the Nets a second-tier Eastern Conference team behind teams like Miami and Detroit, there does seem to be a significant effort to improve the team, in sharp contrast to the atmosphere of last summer, when under orders from new owner Bruce Ratner, the Nets gave away half their players.

Last July, I commenced a boycott of the Nets. The boycott lasted through the 2004-05 season.

I am not quite ready to officially end my boycott, because it is first necessary to wait until tomorrow night's draft and the free agency period that will follow for confirmation that the Nets will indeed commit to winning instead of cost-cutting.

But in the meantime, today I made tentative plans to end the boycott by purchasing season tickets for the 2005-06 season. The Nets have slashed ticket prices, with my two tickets costing just $10 each. I elected not to wait because by the time the summer is over, the $10 seats that would be available will be in an inferior location to the ones that I have purchased.
posted on 6/27/2005

 
Settlements and Logic

When the subject is Jewish settlement of Judea, Samaria and Gaza, logic and reason usually disappear. This applies both on the extreme Israeli (and pro-Israel Jewish) right, as well as among the Israeli (and Jewish) left, and most of the world.

There are many manifestations of this. Here's one that became apparent in a conversation that I had yesterday with a modern Orthodox person with left-wing sentiments on the question of Israeli retention of disputed territory.

This person made clear that he sees nothing sacred about the Green Line (Israel's armistice line following the 1948-49 War), and that he therefore rejects the notion that settlement of territory captured in '67 was inherently illegitimate.

However, he is adamantly opposed to the settlement of Gaza, much more than the post '67 expansion of Jerusalem and the settlement of Judea and Samaria. Indeed, he described settlement in Gaza as "colonialist."

His reasoning: There are very few Jews (approximately 9000) in Gaza, and since they are so outnumbered by Arabs, the entire project there is immoral and indeed "colonialist."

Now, there may be good reasons to oppose settlement in Gaza, and to argue that it was a mistake from the outset. But to call settlement in a particular area immoral and colonialist specifically because relatively few participated in settlement there strikes me as absurd. Would Jewish settlement of Gaza have been more moral if 900,000 Jews had moved there, instead of 9000? My guess is that it would have been seen by Palestinians as much more colonialist, as a takeover of the entire Strip instead of (mainly) just a relatively small block of settlements on the southern tip of Gaza.

Nevertheless, despite the logical absurdity of the position that the fewer people who settle, the more illegitimate such settlement is, this in fact is the prevailing view among Israelis, and indeed much of the world.

Thus, in areas settled by Israel in which many Jews live, the "settlements" quickly became seen as normal Israeli towns. The best example is Ariel. It's fairly deep into Samaria, but because it has about 20,000 residents, most (correctly or incorrectly) insist that it must permanently be part of Israel.

In contrast, with several exceptions, most of the Gaza settlements are just outside the Green Line. Indeed, Amram Mitzna, Labor's candidate for Prime Minister in the 2003 election, told Haaretz last year that he disagreed with Ariel Sharon's plan to dismantle the northern Gaza settlements of Dugit, Alei Sinai and Nissanit, since they are right next to the Green Line and do not encroach on Arab villages or towns.

Similarly, the tiny settlement outposts are seen as nuisances that should be dismantled. This conveniently overlooks that almost all of the large settlements, including Maaleh Adumim, where 30,000 Israelis live, started off modestly in a similar manner.

Even President Bush has indicated that the reality of "major Israeli population centers" beyond the '67 borders "must be taken into account" in a final status agreement.

The point being made, fairly or not, logically or not, is that becoming a major population center provides at least some legitimacy to a settlement, while strategic location and even proximity to the Green Line and/or to Arab areas have been rendered almost meaningless.

In other words, it's all about demography.

This has far-reaching implications for settlement in post-'67 Jerusalem and Jerusalem's suburbs, as well as in Gush Etzion, western Samaria, and the Golan Heights. These are the areas that the large majority of Israelis want to retain and in which Israel currently has a demographic advantage. Since a final status agreement - if one ever is reached - likely will not be achieved for many years to come, it is essential to maintain Jewish growth in these areas and to limit Arab growth.

With regard to the Golan, only about 18,000 Jews live there, and the population has had limited growth since Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir left office, suggesting that, despite Israel's 1981 annexation of the Golan, Israel's recent governments - both Likud and Labor - do not want the Golan to become a "major Israeli population center".
posted on 6/22/2005

 
Dr. Brown's

In a recent Jewish Press column about Jews in the American South, Jason Maoz wrote that Southern Jews "are as likely to salivate over a dinner of fried chicken, collard greens, sweet potato pie and iced tea as they are to crave a repast of matzoh-ball soup, pastrami on rye, side knish and glass of Dr. Brown's."

It's understandable that Jews in the South do not necessarily consume Dr. Brown's, but I'm increasingly disturbed by how few Jews even in New York City purchase Dr. Brown's.

With rare exceptions, I make sure to have plenty of Dr. Brown's black cherry soda available for all of my shabbos meals, as well as a generous amount of Sharon's Sorbet (usually one coconut and one additional flavor).

This applies both in summer and in winter.

Sadly, in this era of increasing ignorance amongst Jews, it is quite common to visit a New York home of an observant Jew and find neither Dr. Brown's nor Sharon's.

Some, indeed, have no clue what Dr. Brown's black cherry soda is. Once, I went to my in-laws for shabbos, and my father-in-law proudly served me a glass of Cherry Coke, apparently confusing Cherry Coke with black cherry soda. Cherry Coke is okay, but it is no Dr. Brown's black cherry, and never will be, and I politely explained this to him. For my next visit, he even more proudly served me Pathmark diet black cherry soda, which my wife insisted I drink. I complied, and even made a bracha (blessing) over the Pathmark soda, which not only is without sugar but apparently is also without any sugar substitute.

Since that time, whenever I visit my in-laws, I make sure to stop off in the local supermarket and pick up a six pack of Dr. Brown's diet black cherry and a liter of the regular black cherry. While they tend to be mildly offended at this practice, it is the only way I can combat the growing Jewish ignorance of northern Jews toward their tradition, since 1869.
posted on 6/22/2005

 
No Jews Allowed = Tolerance

The Simon Wiesenthal Center is presenting its 2005 Tolerance Award to King Abdullah of Jordan. Rabbi Marvin Hier, head of the Wiesenthal Center, will lead a 38-member delegation to Abdullah's palace to personally make the presentation.

Abdullah is a relative moderate among Arab leaders, and Israel does have a formal peace treaty with Jordan. Those are good things. But to present a tolerance award to Abdullah is absurd. There are a total of zero Jews in Jordan, which continues to have a statute prohibiting Jews from owning property, and stating that anyone can become a citizen of Jordan except a Jew.

So while "liberals" are busy divesting from Israel and calling Israel an apartheid state - despite the fact that nearly 20 percent of Israeli citizens are Muslim Arabs - a Jewish organization is sending 38 people to sing the praises of the King of a dictatorship that bars Jews.

If the leading Jewish organizations actually represented us, we would truly be a pathetic people. Fortunately, we aren't a pathetic people, we just have pathetic organizations led by pathetic "leaders" desperate to pretend that they have worldwide relevance.
posted on 6/19/2005

 
Bring Back Art Howe

Yes, Mets manager Willie Randolph is that bad. His low baseball IQ is complimented by his stubborn refusal to alter his absurd lineup or to allow his best performing pitchers to pitch.
posted on 6/19/2005

 
Ode To Shea

Am I the only Mets fan who will miss Shea Stadium when it is razed by a bulldozer and replaced by a replica of all the other "modern" stadiums?

Aren't Yankee fans going to miss Yankee Stadium?

It's amazing how so little (if anything) has been written this week about the fact that in a few years, New York's two major league baseball stadiums will be no more.

When it was constructed in the early 60's, it was ultra-modern, but supposedly Shea Stadium is now a dump. Objectively, it doesn't have very much character, and there are better places to watch a game.

Funny, nobody mentions that Madison Square Garden comes with corner blindspots making part of the ice or court invisible to almost all fans. MSG is identified as a "mecca" even though, if not for the fans, it would be a lousy place to watch a game.

I attended my first baseball game at Shea Stadium twenty-five years ago, on Sunday, June 15, 1980. It was jacket day and the Mets lost 3-0. The previous night, the Mets won 7-6 on Steve Henderson's three run homer with two outs in the bottom of the ninth.

I'm all for progress, and with the Mets picking up much of the cost, it's hard to complain too strongly about a new stadium for the Mets.

But isn't anyone else going to miss the place where every Mets home game since 1964 has been played, where the Mets won the World Series in '69 and '86? The 410 sign in dead centerfield, the field still suited best for pitching and defense in a sport that (at least until this year) has become home run obsessed?

The stadium where Lenny Dykstra's homer won Game 3 of the '86 NLCS, where Tom Seaver pitched so many gems including the decisive '73 pennant clincher, where Keith Hernandez cut down so many bunts, where Dwight Gooden and Darryl Strawberry provided so much promise in the mid-80's and Gregg Jefferies did the same in late 1988, and where Robin Ventura, Todd Pratt and Benny Agbayani hit those unforgettable homers in the 1999 and 2000 playoffs?

And perhaps most importantly, when the new stadium is built, will it too be visible - first from a distance and then from up close - from the window of the 7 train?
posted on 6/17/2005

 
More On Religious Zionism, Greater Israel and Gush Etzion

Further to yesterday's post about Rav Amital and religious Zionism, I have two additional thoughts:

1. Rabbi Amital's response to those undergoing an ideological crisis due to the impending unilateral withdrawal from Gaza and northern Samaria is that "the State was declared without Gush Katif, without Jaffa, without Nahariya, and without the Old City of Jerusalem ... when we heard about the fall of Gush Etzion, it was bitter, and nevertheless we rejoiced" over the establishment of the State.

While I agree with R. Amital's approach to religion and Zionism, his response fails to take into account that the fall, during war in 1948, of Gush Etzion and the Old City of Jerusalem, while indeed very tragic, is very different from a decision to unilaterally withdraw from territory. This is especially the case since the battles for the Old City and Gush Etzion continued even when the Jewish forces were nearly decimated, and the defenders held the Jordanian army from conquering western Jerusalem. As Prime Minister David Ben Gurion said: "I can think of no battle in the annals of the Israel Defense Forces which was more magnificent, more tragic or more heroic than the struggle for Gush Etzion … If there exists a Jewish Jerusalem, our foremost thanks go to the defenders of Gush Etzion."

The Jewish residents of Judea, Samaria and Gaza were told for decades that their presence was heroic and protected Israel's major population centers from attack. For some of these communities to now be unilaterally destroyed, without any reciprocal concession by the Palestinians, is akin to suddenly declaring, in a form of revisionist history, that the Gush Etzion communities actually impeded Israel in the 1948 War.

2. On Shavuos at Manhattan's Lincoln Square Synagogue, Rabbi Moshe Taragin, also of Yeshivat Har Etzion, and a disciple of Rav Amital, gave a lecture in which he offered many sources showing that Jewish sovereignty in Israel, even if led by a non-religious government, has deep religious significance.

Discussing the unilateral withdrawal plan, R. Taragin stated that "these are places that G-d clearly wants us to settle." Of course, R. Taragin's mentor, R. Amital, rejects that approach. As Haaretz described him in its feature last week, R. Amital "is a sharp opponent of the Greater Israel approach. In a sermon he delivered in the yeshiva just a month ago, he said: 'A Palestinian state is the light at the end of the tunnel of what we have undergone in the past few years, because only a Palestinian state will save us from losing the Jewish state.'" The Haaretz piece then notes: "That sentence, [Rabbi Amital] relates with a twinkle of pleasure in his eyes, was apparently considered so radical by his students that they decided on their own to censor it in the printed version of the sermon."

I didn't attend Gush, but have long found it interesting how so many students of Rav Amital and Rav Aharon Lichtenstein (many of these "students" now themselves rabbis) espouse the philosophy of R. Amital and R. Lichtenstein in every area except the political question of the future of Judea, Samaria and Gaza. And, I suppose, it is equally interesting that R. Amital and R. Lichtenstein have taken a relatively dovish political position despite their yeshiva being in the "West Bank." (As silly as it may seem to most observant Jews, to almost the entire world, and to a disturbingly increasing number of Israelis, Alon Shvut is just another "settlement" located in "occupied territory." Even many religious Jews are unaware of Gush Etzion's history.)
posted on 6/17/2005

 
Rabbi Amital On Religious Zionism and the Redemption

A few weeks ago, I posted about the reference in the prayer for the State of Israel recited by most modern Orthodox shuls to reishit tzmichat g'ulateinu, the first flowering of our redemption.

Rabbi Yehuda Amital, who heads Yeshivat Har Etzion together with Rabbi Aharon Lichtenstein (and who was the subject of an interesting feature in last Friday's Haaretz on the eve of his retirement) gave a superb lecture on the topic last month on Yom Haatzmaut. Rav Amital's lecture should be seen as among the definitive statements of a moderate, rationalist religious Zionism.

In response to the ideological crisis experienced by some religious Zionists in the wake of Prime Sharon's unilateral withdrawal plan, Rav Amital starts by pointing out that even the establishment of the State of Israel occurred together with tragedy. Indeed, "the day the State of Israel was declared, the fifth of Iyar, 5708 (May 14, 1948), was a day of God's anger, for we received the bitter news of the fall of Gush Etzion and the many victims who were slaughtered here." Yet, R. Amital writes, "I danced and rejoiced on the fifth of Iyar 5708, when the State was declared without Gush Katif, without Jaffa, without Nahariya, and without the Old City of Jerusalem, so should I not rejoice today? We cannot deny that the current period is a bitter one, but then, too, when we heard about the fall of Gush Etzion, it was bitter, and nevertheless we rejoiced! Therefore the problem is more emotional than substantial."

Rav Amital correctly states that the current ideological crisis mainly "stems from the fact that among various groups, doubts have begun to arise concerning the expression, "reishit tzemichat ge'ulateinu, the beginning of the flowering of our redemption." He explains that the students of Rav Zvi Yehuda Kook insisted that "the beginning of the redemption refers not to the Jewish nation dwelling in the Land of Israel, but rather to the absolute sovereignty of the Jewish nation over all parts of Eretz Yisrael... According to this understanding, if a major aspect of the purpose of the State is the fulfillment of the command to exercise sovereignty over Eretz Yisrael, then a State that hands over territories betrays its purpose, and we must question whether it is still 'the beginning of the flowering of our redemption.'"

Rav Amital strongly rejects this approach, stating: "I danced on the 29th of November 1947, at Be'erot Yitzchak, even though the U.N. had partitioned the land, and likewise in 1948."

As for "the beginning of the redemption," Rav Amital explains that the use of this phrase predates the State, that indeed, since 1874 there have been rabbis "who spoke about the 'beginning of the redemption,' the 'revealed end,' the 'footsteps of the Messiah' and a few years later came the greatest Holocaust that had ever happened in all of Jewish history." As a result, Rav Amital calls for a more moderate understanding of the words reishit tzmichat g'ulateinu.

He explains that even if we are not living in a messianic era, "there is still great importance to the political freedom of establishing a State. Rambam writes that one of the reasons for the festival of Chanuka is that 'Jewish sovereignty was restored for more than two hundred years' during the period of the Chashmonaim (Hilkhot Chanuka 3:1), even though we know the low moral standing of the many members of the Hasmonean dynasty." Thus, Rav Herzog proclaimed that Jewish sovereignty in the Land of Israel is - particularly after the Holocaust - a form of redemption, albeit an incomplete redemption.

Rav Amital concludes that the messianic view of the State took hold among religious Zionism only after the Six Day War. Some, he explans (critically), insist on retaining all of Judea, Samaria and Gaza despite the demographic and political obstacles, arguing that since we are in a messianic era, "there is no need to worry about the pragmatic, actual ramifications of our actions."

The Six Day War and its ramifications from the perspective of religious Jews is itself an important subject, about which I hope to offer detailed thoughts in the next few weeks.
posted on 6/16/2005

 
Hizbullah's Latest Red Herring

Several years ago, Nabil Khalifeh, a Lebanese political activist, wrote a brave column that was published in The Jerusalem Post. Khalifeh called on Israel to stand strong against terror, and not to deal with Yasser Arafat or the Assad dictatorship in Syria.

With regard to Lebanon, Khalifeh wrote:

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.

Israel still retains the Sheba Farms, but some in the Israeli opposition have called on Israel to cede the area if it would lead to Hizbullah disarming.

Today's Ynet reports that yesterday, Hizbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah insisted at an election rally in Lebanon that "seven Arab villages currently in northern Israel belong to Lebanon and should be ceded."
posted on 6/10/2005

 
Violence in Yeshiva

Great post by Robert Avrech about the terrible experience he endured at the hands of his sadistic principal while a fourth grader at Yeshiva of Flatbush. I love the raw and unrestrained fury contained in the post, and the fact that he writes about a problem (it is much less of a problem today) that was fairly well known but rarely discussed in public forums. Here's an excerpt:

The teacher told JB that she was "very disappointed" in me. JB ordered me to step outside into the hallway...
Braverman wasted no time.
"Aren't you ashamed of yourself?" He shouted.
He grabbed me by the ears, twisted hard, then slammed my head against the wall. My skull actually bounced off the wall and made a hollow cracking sound.
"I'm sorry," I sobbed, "I'm sorry."
JB yelled that I was a disgrace to my family, and to The Jewish People. Quite an accomplishment for a fourth grader. He slammed my head against the wall a few more times.
I kept crying, "I'm sorrry, Mar Braverman, I'm sorry." But the beating did not stop.
Spittle flew from his lips, hit me in the face. Gross. My yarmulke fell to the floor. Instinctively, I leaned over to pick it up; JB grabbed me by the hair and twisted with all his might. My right ear drum popped. It has never been the same since. All the time JB was screaming something about all the Jews who had died in the camps and is this how I repay them?

I posted the following comment to Robert's post:

When I was in sixth grade [in Toras Emes], in 1984, we had a chasidic rebbe, probably in his mid-30's, for the 12-1 chumash session. One Friday toward the end of the school year, he demanded that a number of kids stay after school. I ignored him, and walked out the door, when, presumably infuriated by the affront to his honor, he grabbed me, slammed my head and body against the wall and punched me repeatedly. This went on for quite a while. When he was done, he warned me not to tell my parents, or he would have me thrown out of the yeshiva.

I did not tell my parents, however, on Saturday night, my mother noticed that my back was badly bruised. I reluctantly told her what happened.

The next morning, my parents went to the yeshiva principal, a man who was principal of the yeshiva for more than 40 years, to demand that the rebbi be fired. It is worth noting that my family had a fairly good relationship with the principal, and that my father was fairly well known in the community.

The principal finished his meeting with my parents, and asked me and the rebbi to come to his office. My parents quietly told me not to worry, to tell the principal exactly what happened and not be scared of the rebbi. I told the truth. The principal asked the rebbi to respond. The rebbi's response was that I was a liar, and had banged my own head against the wall when he demanded that I stayed late, and that he did not lay a hand on me except to restrain me from hurting myself further.

The principal's response was to berate me for making false accusations against a rebbi, and he actually forced me to apologize to the rebbi. The rebbi was not fired and I went back to his classroom.

On the last day of school, the rebbi asked me in front of the entire class to forgive him. I responded sarcastically that there was no reason for me to forgive him, since I had thrown myself against the wall, and he never touched me. He then asked me privately for forgiveness, and I ignored him.

On erev Yom Kippur, I was walking home from mincha in Boro Park when I met the rebbi. He stopped me, told me that he was no longer teaching at the yeshiva (I assume the principal conveniently decided to terminate him at the end of the school year, and berated me only for some stupid purpose of protecting the authority of the rebbis) and that he had been thinking about what he did all summer, that he was very wrong, and since it is erev Yom Kippur, G-d clearly decided to have me meet him for a reason, and he hoped I would grant him forgiveness. I muttered okay, I forgive you, and walked away. Given that I don't recall ever seeing him again (and I lived in Boro Park for 13 more years), perhaps there really was a divine reason for that chance meeting.

Ultimately, I think the principal's actions are as reprehensible as the rebbi's. The rebbi did a terrible thing, and then refused to accept responsibility instead blaming his victim, but at least in the end he seemed to have understood the wrongfulness of his conduct. The principal, a school educator, berated a kid who had been badly beaten by his own rebbi two days earlier for no reason other than some archaic notion of supporting authority figures.
posted on 6/09/2005

 
Hiatus

I haven't posted in a couple of weeks for three reasons. First, things have been extremely busy, both at work and at home. Second, after nearly 700 posts over the last two years, some of what I would otherwise be inclined to write would be repetitive - in other words, they would cover topics that I've already posted about. As a result, I am resisting writing about the apparently dead idea of a West Side Stadium for the Jets, or President Bush's 2004 letter to Prime Minister Sharon concerning potential changes to the '67 borders, or Willie Randolph's and Omar Minaya's respective performances as manager and general manager of the Mets. Finally, I am waiting for moChassid to return from his latest retirement.

While not worthy of a full post, I was quite pleased that the Miami Heat lost to the Detroit Pistons last night. Alonzo Mourning, Miami's backup center, is a loathsome figure, and proof that serious illness (Mourning underwent a kidney transplant last year) does not necessarily improve one's character.

When I get the chance, I intend to post about the AIPAC scandal; the controversy over IDF soldiers purportedly killing (under order of senior IDF officers) Palestinian Authority policemen in retaliation for the killing of IDF reservists; the best chance for a revival of Likud advocacy of a Jewish presence in Judea and Samaria; whether the Jets are improved; and whether my boycott of the New Jersey Nets will continue into the 2005-06 season.
posted on 6/07/2005