The Zionist Conspiracy |
|
|
A clandestine undertaking on behalf of Israel, the Jets and the Jews. 
|
Thursday, December 29, 2005
Arutz Sheva Confuses Israel With USSR Likud leader Binyamin Netanyahu is proposing that the party disqualify anyone who has been sentenced to a prison term of three months or more from being a Likud candidate for a Knesset seat. The proposal is clearly aimed at Moshe Feiglin, who was sentenced to a prison term on trumped up charges of sedition for his illegal protests against the Rabin government. While I'm not a fan of Feiglin, I don't like the proposal at all. There are plenty of reasonable ways to express one's opposition to the Netanyahu proposal, but in the latest sign that Arutz Sheva has veered from being a far right-wing but still journalistically respectable outlet, the site submits a bizarre argument that the proposal would disqualify Likud ex-Soviet dissidents like Natan Sharansky and Yuli Edelstein from running on the Likud list, since Sharansky and Edelstein both were imprisoned by the Soviet Union. It would seem to be quite obvious that a proposal by an Israeli party banning those who served prison terms would only apply to those who served prison terms in Israel, and certainly not those who were imprisoned in a totalitarian regime like the Soviet Union, which for decades was an enemy of Israel. Wednesday, December 28, 2005
Dual Hashkafah Theory Much has been written about the dual covenant theory for Judaism and Christianity, a theory that has never made much sense to me. I'm wondering whether it's time for those of us who are observant Jews with ties to both the charedi and modern sectors of Orthodoxy to promote a dual hashkafah theory. (Hashkafah refers to Jewish thought and/or ideology.) The dual hashkafah theory does not call for complete pluralism within Orthodoxy. Instead, it would seek a tacit acceptance among the majority of Orthodox Jews for the legitimacy of certain views and practices prevalent in large sectors of Orthodoxy. For example, within the charedi world, serious study of Jewish texts by females has increased substantially over the last generation. However, for a variety of reasons, the idea of females studying Talmud remains a non-starter, and that's not going to change anytime soon. I don't think those who are not charedi should push for change in this area or denigrate or even challenge the charedi norm. They should accept and understand that Bais Yaakovs and charedi seminaries won't teach gemara. At the same time, those who are charedi should accept and even respect the fact that in virtually the entire non-charedi world, the idea of Talmud study by females is now fully accepted. Israel is another issue to which the dual hashkafah theory would apply. Most charedim actually have a positive view toward the State of Israel. Most non-charedim don't really believe that Israel is definitely the start of a messianic redemptive process. The differences are largely based upon a view regarding whether the idea of secular Zionism was religiously and historically a good thing, with the charedim focusing more on the extreme secularism of the early Zionists, and the non-charedim focusing on the obvious historic evidence that Jews would be a lot better off had we all formed a state and gotten out of Europe sooner. Both of these viewpoints have legitimacy; can't they coexist together? Over time, differences in hashkafah are often accepted within normative Orthodoxy. Ideas, sects and practices that once were deemed radical or even heretical often ultimately receive acceptance. There is no need today for any group to embrace or accept radical change, but practices that are mainstream within large sectors of Orthodoxy should generally (there may be certain exceptions) be accepted as legitimate by those in other sectors. Tuesday, December 27, 2005
Rabbi Shmuel Kamenetsky On Slifkin A couple of days ago, Gil Student offered his thoughts on the recent developments in the Slifkin controversy, in which, as he puts it, three weeks ago, "R. Shmuel Kamenetsky, R. Aharon Schechter, and R. Ya'akov Perlow--signed letters condemning R. Slifkin in somewhat vague terms, almost a full year after the original scandal surfaced and after months of relative quiet." My understanding - based upon second hand information - is that R. Kamenetsky's position is that he has not withdrawn his haskamah (rabbinical approbation) on R. Slifkin's books, but criticized Rabbi Slifkin for other writings that he deemed to be unacceptable. It wasn't clear whether R. Kamenetsky was referring to R. Slifkin's recent essay about jumping elephants, or something else entirely. In any event, coming - as Gil says - in a period of relative quiet, the vague statement reeks of politics within the Moetzes and unfortunately does not increase the stature of the "gedolim." Just One More Game To Go Two fourth quarter touchdowns made the final score of 31-21 look decent, but in reality it was yet another miserable performance by the Jets, who were completely dominated and didn't even manage to get a first down until late in the 3rd quarter. As usual, the players came out flat. Before the game, head buffoon Herm Edwards said that he hoped the Jets could win one of their last two games because finishing with a .500 record at home would be "a nice achievement." For those watching the draft pick standings, it was also a dismal week for the Jets. With Houston at 2-13 and four teams tied with 3 wins, the tiebreaker for draft pick order will be determined based upon strength of schedule, with the teams with the weaker schedules picking first. Coming into week 16, the Jets were tied with the Saints and ahead of Green Bay - both of whom are also 3-12 - in strength of schedule. But this week, the Jets' 2005 opponents went 11-5, resulting in the Jets now being well behind the Saints and tied with the Packers. Even if the Jets lose next week, they might still end up with only the fourth pick in the 2006 draft. If they win, they may pick as low as seventh. On the other hand, if the Jets lose, Houston beats the 49ers and some other things fall into place, it's still conceivable that the Jets could end up with the top pick. Stay tuned. Monday, December 26, 2005
Ben Brafman and Shabbos In his article in the new Winter 2005 issue of Jewish Action (not yet online), criminal defense attorney Benjamin Brafman recalls the not guilty verdict after the trial of Sean ("Puff Daddy") Combs, whom Brafman represented with Johnny Cochran. Brafman writes that "With shabbat rapidly approaching, I left the courtroom where hundreds of reporters waited to discuss the verdict. I was very conscious of the fact that every word I said would be quoted all over the world, but also well aware that it was already very late." Brafman then says that he gave a very short statement to the media, concluded by saying "Shabbat is coming," and "then jumped into a waiting car and sped away." Brafman then writes that "for months following the trial, people I did not even know would stop me on the street to tell me how my public announcement about not working on Shabbat made it much easier for them to explain observance issues to their own employers." Without going into too much detail, suffice to say that the Puff Daddy trial ended after the start of shabbos. By the time Brafman "jumped into a waiting car and sped away," it was not only "very late" but shabbat had, by any standard, already come. In an interview last year with The Jerusalem Post, Brafman was described as "a modern Orthodox Jew who says he tries not to work on Shabbat." According to a 2000 feature about Brafman: "Being an observant Jew, says Brafman, can at times impact on his professional obligations. Then he'll make compromises. "When a trial is in critical posture during a religious holiday, it might be impossible for him to be at Beth Sholom Synagogue in Lawrence, Long Island, where he is a trustee. He'll stay in a hotel and walk to court so that his client not suffer from his absence." My purpose in writing this post is not to discuss Brafman's level of religious observance, but to question his offering of himself as a role model for frum professionals, many of whom pay a professional price for their faithful observance of shabbos. Toward the conclusion of his Jewish Action piece, criticizing frum people who violate secular law, Brafman writes: "You cannot be frum if you are not frum. It is that simple. You cannot be strictly observant yet pick the rules you live by. Torah Judaism does not allow for selective enforcement of halachah." Indeed. Moshe Feiglin Following last week's Likud primary, there were all sorts of stories from the media reporting on the purported rise of Moshe Feiglin. Feiglin openly espouses a plan under which his religious and extreme right-wing faction will slowly take over Likud from within. Last week, Feiglin received 12 percent of the votes in the Likud primary. Considering that around 55,000 people voted in the primary, this means that around 6700 people voted for Feiglin. Somehow, the news that 6700 people voted for Moshe Feiglin resulted in all kinds of scorn from the left-wing media (as well as from Ehud Olmert of Kadima, who was only elected to the current Knesset due to a deal with Feiglin, a separate issue), warning that Likud had now officially become a fanatical party. The right-wing media had similar reports, excitedly informing us that the 12 percent support for Feiglin proved that his popularity is soaring. In reality, while Feiglin is a pest within Likud, he remains a very minor and marginal political figure in Israel. Politically, his stature is mostly in his own mind. Friday, December 23, 2005
Binyamin Netanyahu I may be one of the few people who likes Binyamin Netanyahu, who is now back as leader of the Likud - albeit a Likud in crisis following Prime Minister Sharon's formation of the Kadima party. No doubt, Netanyahu is an opportunist, but no more than most Israeli politicians. As I see it, Netanyahu has long been torn between his nationalist ideology and his sense that one needs to be pragmatic. In other words, between his heart and his mind. I am sympathetic with that inner conflict because it is one that I fully share. I too have right-wing sentiments in constant battle with my understanding that political moderation and pragmatism are necessary in the support of Israel's rights in Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria. When push comes to shove, Netanyahu usually chooses the pragmatic approach, infuriating the right-wing. That's what happened when he implemented the withdrawal from Hebron (an agreement signed by Prime Minister Rabin under Oslo 2), the Wye Agreement, and his initial (if highly conditional and very unenthusiastic) support for the Gaza withdrawal. Ultimately, however, Netanyahu's ideology tugs at him. As a result, though at Wye he agreed to cede 13 percent of Judea and Samaria, he only implemented a withdrawal from two percent, because the Palestinians did not comply with their obligation to crush Hamas. When Sharon ignored Netanyahu's demands relating to Gaza, Netanyahu resigned from the government and expressed opposition to any unilateral withdrawal. And it was Netanyahu who, when Sharon accepted a Palestinian state in 2002, challenged Sharon in the Likud primaries. And lost. All of this infuriates the Israeli media. For them, it's bad enough to be right-wing, but to tease them with moderation like Netanyahu does only to then return to his right-wing instincts is deemed unforgivable. The sad thing, for those on the right, is that whenever he chooses his heart over his mind, Netanyahu loses. The Likud battle over a Palestinian state was one example. Another was the aftermath of the Wye agreement. It infuriated the right, which idiotically responded by bringing down his government. When Netanyahu then wouldn't implement the withdrawal, he infuriated the center, and lost the ensuing election to Ehud Barak whose concessions dwarfed anything Netanyahu ever imagined. A Likud victory in the upcoming election remains very unlikely, but if it makes a respectable showing and finishes ahead of Labor, Netanyahu hopefully won't be deposed as its leader and will remain either as Sharon's senior coalition partner or as leader of the opposition, a position in which he excelled from 1993-1996 when he eloquently led the opposition to the Rabin-Peres government's concessions to the Palestinians and Syrians. While those on the extreme right may not see much difference between Likud under Netanyahu and Kadima under Sharon, it's worth remembering, as Caroline Glick points out in today's Jerusalem Post, that a few months ago, Ehud Olmert, likely Kadima's number 2 to Sharon, told the Israel Policy Forum: "We are tired of fighting, we are tired of being courageous, we are tired of winning, we are tired of defeating our enemies." Netanyahu understands that, unfortunately, Israel still must continue to fight, be courageous, win, and defeat its enemies. If for no other reason than that, the distinction between Likud and Kadima is quite clear. Orthodoxy Test I just took the Orthodoxy Test, which purports to determine whether one is right-wing yeshivish charedi; left-wing yeshivish charedi; right-wing modern orthodox; or left-wing modern orthodox. I found some the choices of answers to some of the questions to miss the potential nuances within Orthodox thought. For example, the possible answers to the question about the religious significance of the State of Israel left out what I believe: That the State is positive and religiously significant, but not necessarily part of a redemptive messianic process. Anyway, the test concluded that I am... "Huh?... I give up. What are you?" Apparently, I am definitely not left-wing modern orthodox or right-wing charedi. My test scores (whatever they mean) were: Left Wing Modern Orthodox: 17% Right Wing Modern Orthodox: 52% Left Wing Yeshivish/Chareidi: 48% Right Wing Yeshivish/Chareidi: 19% I guess this means I am right on the border between rebellious, heretical left-wing charedi, and upstanding, righteous, right-wing modern Orthodox. Wednesday, December 21, 2005
Stay Tuned Between the latest Lakewood controversy, the shocking departure of Johnny Damon from the Red Sox and the more shocking signing of Damon by the Yankees, the again woeful New York Rangers, the return of Binyamin Netanyahu to the leadership of Likud, and the absurd selection of Ty Law to the Pro Bowl, there's a lot to post about. Unfortunately, the transit strike is wreaking havoc on my schedule, causing me to arrive very late to work and very late back home at night. All of this leaves me no time at all for blogging. I hope to back posting soon, certainly before Likud deposes Netanyahu. Tuesday, December 20, 2005
God, Gush Katif and Ariel Sharon Early Sunday afternoon, when Prime Minister Sharon was rushed to Hadassah Hospital and preliminary reports were sketchy as to his condition and prognosis, I feared, in addition for Sharon's health, that if the worst were to happen, many frum people would declare that God had punished Sharon for the evacuation of Gush Katif. It seems that rationalism is becoming increasingly scarce in the frum world. Monday, December 19, 2005
Ushpizin I was all set to attend the U.S. premiere for Ushpizin at the Tribeca Film Festival last April. Alas a double gas leak in my apartment scuttled those plans. I finally had a chance to see the Israeli film centered on a charedi couple on Saturday night. One of the previews prior to the start of the movie was for an upcoming film with lesbian overtones. I could not help but feel bad for frum people who typically avoid movie theaters, made an exception for Ushpizin, and then were offended by that preview. As for Ushpizin, while the story itself is a fairly simple fable and some might say it's a bit contrived, the script is very sharp and engaging and the acting is truly superb. By far, Ushpizin is the most authentic film depicting frum people and frum life. It's been said (accurately) that the real star of a certain former HBO show starring Sarah Jessica Parker was New York City. L'Havdil (in extreme contrast), at least for me, the star of Ushpizin is the city of Jerusalem. The price of admission and a babysitter was well worth the feeling that I was back in Jerusalem for 90 minutes. Hopeless With Herm For the fourth time this season, the Jets had a chance to win a game on a late 4th quarter drive. For the fourth time, their drive stalled and they lost, snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. Yesterday, after moving from their own 13 yard line to the Dolphins 14, the Jets had 1st and 5 with 1:03 and one timeout left. Not a huge amount of time, but certainly more than enough to run at least once, and throw the ball over the middle. Instead, predictably, head coach Herm Edwards and offensive coordinator Mike Heimerdinger panicked, apparently thinking there was too little time to do anything other than pass to the end zone. And so the Jets threw a quick fade to Justin McCareins in the corner of the end zone on first down, an overthrown pass out of the end zone to Jerricho Cotchery on second down, and another quick end zone fade on third down to Laveranues Coles. All were incomplete. On 4th down, they finally tried for the first down on a short pass to Doug Jolley, who was well covered and couldn't get to the ball. In his postgame press conference, Edwards was asked about the playcalling. As usual whenever he's asked basic questions, Herm grew paranoid. He responded that the Dolphins were blitzing, so the Jets receivers were being covered "man to man." Then Herm shouted, in increasing decibel levels, "MAN TO MAN! MAAAAAAN TO MAAAAAAN!!! YOU HEAR ME? MAAAAAAN TO MAAAAAAN!!!! Huh? Why does that limit the Jets to end zone fades? Why not a slant over the middle to one of the wide receivers, or a pass underneath to Jolley prior to 4th down? Those were the kinds of plays that had been working for the Jets all day. A second or third down draw to running Cedric Houston would also have been appropriate. Most damningly, after the game, Dolphins linebacker Zach Thomas said that the book on the Jets is that they always call fades when they get near the end zone, and that the Dolphins therefore were expecting and were ready for the plays called by the Jets. Ultimately, the loss of yesterday's game itself is not nearly as bothersome as the fact that Herm Edwards will be back next season (and possibly thereafter), continuing to blow game after game with his inept and ignorant game mismanagement. Friday, December 16, 2005
Netanyahu Supporters Asleep at the Wheel On Wednesday, regarding the Newsweek report that Kalman Gayer, an aide to Ariel Sharon said that Sharon would agree to divide Jerusalem and concede 90 percent of Judea and Samaria, I wrote: If the Gayer comments are really a surprise (I had already read the Newsweek article and to me they were not), nobody else in the Israeli media previously picked up on them. Newsweek is not exactly an obscure publication, and I'm sure that many ordinary Israelis read the report on the Internet. Today, Haaretz reports that Binyamin Netanyahu has the following question about the Newsweek report: Why the heck didn't he hear about this earlier? This report appeared in the American weekly 10 days before the Channel 10 correspondent in Washington, Yaron Dekel, got on to it. Ten days and none of Netanyahu's friends in Washington and New York bothered to pick up the phone and tell him about what the adviser said? Actually, why go so far? Newsweek is also issued in Israel. It has quite a number of subscribers here. How did it happen that no one saw it, no one heard about it, no one spoke up? Most peculiar. This is very frustrating for me. I read the Newsweek report more than two weeks ago. I wondered why Netanyahu didn't raise the matter then. While of course it's for Israelis to choose their own leaders, I very much want Netanyahu to win Monday's Likud primary. I very much want him - against what appear to be overwhelming odds - to then lead Likud to victory over Sharon's Kadima party and Amir Peretz's Labor party. So Bibi, how can I help you in the future? DovBear On Munich's Critics DovBear criticizes those (like me) who have been critical of Steven Spielberg's Munich, charging that: Zionists of a certain age and generation think of the Arabs as cartoon villains, with greased mustaches and diabolical plans. To them, Palestinians are symbols, not people. And this tendency to simplify, to rob people of their humanity, cuts both ways: The IDF and Mossad, in their eyes, are flawless, and faultless, the just and glorious warriors. There are close to 300 comments to DovBear's post. I don't have time to read those comments, so it's possible - likely even - that someone has already made the point that the objection to Munich is not to its sympathetic portrayal of Arabs, but its sympathy and understanding for the PLO terrorists who murdered the Israeli athletes in Munich. Luke Ford on Orthodox Jews and Meir Kahane Luke Ford recently wrote: In my experience of Orthodox Judaism, from talking to people to reading pamphlets and books, those who comment favorably on Kahane outnumber those who speak against Kahane by about five-to-one. This reflects a growing tribalism in Orthodox Judaism, the abandonment of universalistic ethics, and a hatred of the outside world. There is no question that far too many Orthodox Jews have at least a somewhat favorable attitude toward Kahane. Some completely support him, while many others will say that Kahane was a bit too extreme but generally on the right path. However, I certainly don't think it's remotely accurate to say that "those who comment favorably on Kahane outnumber those who speak against Kahane by about five-to-one." That certainly hasn't been my experience. I have some friends in the Los Angeles modern Orthodox community, the one that Ford has been most exposed to, and my sense is that in LA, there is a higher ratio of pro-Kahane people than elsewhere. I still strongly doubt that they outnumber those who are anti-Kahane by 5-1. A more serious issue raised by Ford is the pro-Kahane articles and columns that appear in the Orthodox Jewish media. While those who like Kahane write to support him, people like me, who have a negative view toward his extreme ideology, tend to express our opposition by generally calling for pragmatism and moderation and attacking those with extreme views, rather than attacking Kahane himself. That may lead to a sense that almost all of us have positive sentiments toward Kahane, when in reality there is a reluctance - justified or not - by moderates to personally go after a man who was murdered by the same terrorists who implemented the first World Trade Center attack. I do disagree with Ford that support for Kahane relates to "hatred of the outside world." Again, most of Kahane's supporters are modern Orthodox, who, overall, are more likely to be engaged in the "outside world" than charedim. I believe support for Kahane has much more to do with hatred for Arabs than with hatred of all outsiders. Wednesday, December 14, 2005
Robert Aumann and RJJ Following the award of the Nobel Prize in Economics (together with Thomas Schelling) to Robert Aumann, Haaretz reported that "at the yeshiva high school where he studied, he was told he was not very good in mathematics, and they advised him to choose something simpler, like auto mechanics." Worse, Haaretz headlined its report, "School told Nobel Prize winner in economics, `You're no good at math, try auto mechanics'" In a recent interview, Aumann said the exact opposite: "My interest in mathematics actually started in high school - the Rabbi Jacob Joseph Yeshiva on the lower east side of New York City. There was a marvelous teacher of mathematics, by the name of Joseph Gansler. The classes were very small; the high school had just started operating. He used to gather the students around his desk. What really turned me on was geometry, theorems and proofs. So all the credit belongs to Joey Gansler." Obviously, either the Haaretz statement is completely false, or it took seriously a self-deprecating statement made by Aumann. I could not find any other report that Aumann was told at RJJ that he was not very good in math and should become an auto mechanic. (Full disclosure, for those who are not aware: My father has been president of RJJ for the last 33 years. He may choose to say something about this matter.) Israeli Media Asleep at the Wheel More than two weeks ago, a Newsweek report quoted Kalman Gayer, an advisor to Ariel Sharon, as saying that Sharon would accept a Palestinian state on 90 percent of Judea and Samaria and "and a compromise on Jerusalem" in exchange for peace. The Newsweek report was posted on its website, and appeared on newsstands, on November 28. Yesterday, someone working for Israel's Channel 1 came across the Newsweek article, and reported Gayer's comments as an exclusive. As a result, there has been much hoopla in Israel, with Sharon stating that he rejects Gayer's statements, Gayer claiming he was quoted out of context, and Likud attacking Sharon for his apparent willingness to divide Jerusalem. What I don't understand is how and why, if the Gayer comments are really a surprise (I had already read the Newsweek article and to me they were not), nobody else in the Israeli media previously picked up on them. Newsweek is not exactly an obscure publication, and I'm sure that many ordinary Israelis read the report on the Internet. Monday, December 12, 2005
Ynet Gushes Over Stanley Greenberg A new Ynet report that reads like a PR piece tells us that "world-renowned American pollster Stanley Greenberg, who led former Prime Minister Ehud Barak to an impressive elections win in 1999, will be arriving in Israel to meet with Labor Party Chairman Amir Peretz." Ynet reveals that "Greenberg, in almost every case, has bet on the winning horse and is known as someone who marks the target and decisively advances towards it. In 1999 he had known for certain what was about to materialize on the eve of the elections." The Ynet article forgets to mention that Greenberg also worked for Barak in the 2001 elections, when Ariel Sharon defeated Barak in a landslide, as well as for Al Gore in the 2000 U.S. election. Perhaps Greenberg knows "for certain" what will materialize in Israel's 2006 elections - not an Amir Peretz victory - but as with the case with Barak's failed reelection bid and Gore's presidential campaign, decides that he needs to make a living, even if it entails a "bet on the losing horse." Leon Wieseltier Bashes Munich In this week's issue of The New Republic, Leon Wieseltier (not exactly a supporter of right-wing Israelis) echoes my own criticism of Munich: Palestinians murder, Israelis murder. Palestinians show evidence of a conscience, Israelis show evidence of a conscience. Palestinians suppress their scruples, Israelis suppress their scruples. Palestinians make little speeches about home and blood and soil, Israelis make little speeches about home and blood and soil. Palestinians kill innocents, Israelis kill innocents. All these analogies begin to look ominously like the sin of equivalence, and so it is worth pointing out that the death of innocents was an Israeli mistake but a Palestinian objective... The film has no place in its heart for Israel... There are two kinds of Israelis in Munich: cruel Israelis with remorse and cruel Israelis without remorse... Munich prefers a discussion of counterterrorism to a discussion of terrorism; or it thinks that they are the same discussion. This is an opinion that only people who are not responsible for the safety of other people can hold. David Brooks On Munich and Targeted Assassinations Pretty good column by David Brooks in yesterday's New York Times. Brooks properly criticizes Steven Spielberg's Munich, particularly for refusing to accept that Palestinian terrorists are "evil": In his depiction of reality there are no people so committed to a murderous ideology that they are impervious to the sort of compromise and dialogue Spielberg puts such great faith in. Because he will not admit the existence of evil, as it really exists, Spielberg gets reality wrong. Understandably, he doesn't want to portray Palestinian terrorists as cartoon bad guys, but he simply doesn't portray them... In Spielberg's Middle East the only way to achieve peace is by renouncing violence. But in the real Middle East the only way to achieve peace is through military victory over the fanatics, accompanied by compromise between the reasonable elements on each side. Somebody, the Israelis or the Palestinian Authority, has to defeat Hamas and the other terrorist groups. Far from leading to a downward cycle, this kind of violence is the precondition to peace. Brooks gets it wrong, however, on the subject of Israel's policy of targeted assassinations of terrorists, which Spielberg implicitly is strongly critical of, writing that, "over the years Israelis have learned that targeted assassinations, which are the main subject of this movie, are one of the less effective ways to fight terror... Over the past few years Israeli forces have used arrests, intelligence work, the security fence and, at times, targeted assassinations to defeat the second intifada." Brooks underestimates the role that targeted assassinations played in defeating what he calls "the second intifada" and what I call the Palestinian terror war. In fact, especially in Gaza, more than any other anti-terror method, Israel's targeted assassinations of senior terrorists, including Hamas leaders Salah Shehadeh, Sheikh Ahmed Yassin and Abdul Aziz Rantisi created fear and discord within Hamas, prompting Hamas to tacitly agree to temporarily stop suicide bombings. Mofaz's Defection: A Blessing In Disguise? In a post a few weeks ago, referring to blistering attacks by Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz and Foreign Minister Sylvan Shalom - then candidates in the December 19 primary for Likud leader - against Binyamin Netanyahu, the frontrunner in the primary, I wrote: How will Mofaz and Shalom campaign for Netanyahu after saying these things? Perhaps the answer is that they won't. It's entirely possible that if Netanyahu wins the primary, Mofaz, Shalom, or both could also bolt to Sharon's party. Not bothering to even wait for the primary, yesterday Mofaz bolted to Kadima following Friday's polls that gave him little chance of winning the Likud primary. Mofaz made his move a few days after finally criticizing Sharon's move to the left, and around the time letters from him to Likud's 130,000 members, in which he promised to stay in the Likud, arrived in the mail. While today's polls indicate that the Mofaz defection has had little impact at the polls, I believe that it will ultimately be a positive event for Likud. For one thing, Mofaz's move leaves Netanyahu and Shalom as the only viable candidates in the primary. Thus, there will almost certainly not be a second-round runoff. The Likud can therefore finally begin its election campaign early next week. Mofaz was especially close to Sharon, and only got around to attacking Sharon last week. He likely would not have been an asset to Likud in its election campaign. Netanyahu, in contrast, will (assuming he wins) attack Sharon very strongly, and while those attacks may not be portrayed positively by the Israeli media, they will resonate with many traditional Likud voters. Furthermore, while some former Likud voters might view Mofaz's inclusion in Kadima as a basis to switch loyalties, an equal (if not greater) number will see Mofaz as an opportunistic political whore and will stick with Likud for that reason. Shalom, though not really more sincere or loyal to Likud and its ideology than Mofaz, will probably be content with coming in second to Netanyahu and assisting in the Likud campaign, figuring that he can again vie for the party leadership should Likud got trounced in the March election, as all polls say it will. While it does not look as though Kadima can be defeated, I therefore believe that Likud has a good chance of coming in second - ahead of Labor - in the general election. (In light of Likud's recent self destructiveness, I hesitate to predict that this will happen.) In that case, Likud - hopefully headed by Netanyahu - along with the right-wing parties would present a strong opposition to future territorial giveaways by Sharon, an opposition that for better or worse was missing during the period prior to Sharon's withdrawal from Gaza and northern Samaria. Sunday, December 11, 2005
Playing to Win 1. Some Jets fans will surely lament today's 26-10 victory over an awful Raiders team. While the victory, along with another Houston Texans' meltdown (today with second left they missed a 31 yard field goal that would have sent the game into overtime), ends the Jets hopes for Reggie Bush, I'm a strong believer in winning as many games as possible, especially since I am resigned to Herm Edwards' return as head coach in 2006. 2. Before the game, the Jets announced that Curtis Martin is out for the season as a result of the knee injury he sustained in week 2. All season, I've called on the Jets to allow their backup running backs - namely Derrick Blaylock, Cedric Houston and B.J. Askew - to get some meaningful playing time. But the Jets kept handing off to Martin, despite his obvious ineffectiveness. 3. Playing mostly in the late 4th quarter, Askew - a 2003 3rd round pick who weighs 235 pounds - looked very good today. I've long called on the Jets to give the ball to Askew in short yardage situations. Instead, they've never given him a chance, either because he was another bad pick by GM Terry Bradway, or because the coaching staff always lets their young backs languish on the sidelines. Probably a combination of both. 4. Mike Nugent's first four kickoffs were horrible. Three didn't make it to the 15 yard line, while the fourth was a wobbly kick that went out of bounds. 5. Herm's terrible game management was again on display, this time late in the second quarter. With all three timeouts, the Jets started at their own 47 yard line with 40 seconds left. The first play was an 8 yard completion in bounds, but instead of immediately calling timeout, the Jets allowed an extra ten seconds to go off the clock, finally calling a timeout with only 24 seconds left. They failed to score on that drive. Thursday, December 08, 2005
Flight 924 Shooting Am I the only one who thinks that the shooting of Rigoberto Alpizar, the mentally ill passenger who ran off the airplane in Miami yesterday and was promptly shot dead by federal air marshals, was likely unjustified? The Alpizar shooting sort of reminds me of the killing of Gideon Busch, a mentally ill man who in 1999 was shot at least 12 times by numerous NYPD cops because he has holding a hammer. A law school classmate of mine witnessed the Busch shooting and insisted (and testified) that it was unwarranted and unjustified. Wasting a Point Very frustrating overtime loss by the Rangers to Chicago last night. The Rangers dominated the game at even strength, but their power play was abysmal. They were 0 for 9 on the power play, even blowing a two minute 5 on 3 advantage. The Rangers can't continue to rely solely on the goaltending of Henrik Lundqvist and the scoring of Jaromir Jagr and (of late) Peter Prucha. While the Blackhawks were an inferior opponent, tonight the Rangers play at Nashville. Wednesday, December 07, 2005
MoChassid's Foster Baby The Jewish blogosphere can sometimes be a nasty place, so the semi-return of MoChassid is most welcome. Clearly a man of integrity, modesty and kindness, over the last few days MoChassid has written several posts about his family's taking a 10 week old baby into their home five months ago. Today, in his latest post on the subject, he wrote, in part: I do not have the words adequate to describe the joy that The Baby has brought to our home in the last 5 months. How do you explain your feelings when a baby smiles for the first time. Or when you get her to laugh by making goofy faces. Or when she wakes up in the morning and coos for 15 or 20 minutes before she realizes she's hungry. Or when she clutches your finger when you feed her? How do you explain what it means when your kids fight over who gets to hold or feed her (last Shabbos as we were sitting down for Kiddush, my younger daughter said, "I call her for after washing!"), how they fawn over her and love her. Who could ever have imagined that at age 50 I get to help raise the cutest little neshama that you can imagine. I get to see her every development. And, with age, I appreciate each and every step, perhaps more than I did with my own kids when I was younger and more foolish. And what are the costs? So we wake up once or twice in the middle of the night. Big deal. I get right back to sleep. So we don't go out as frequently? We were never big out-goers. There is no sacrifice at all. We are the beneficiaries. That is the truth. Thanks to MoChassid for returning - at least temporarily - to our ranks to offer us his inspiring message of selflessness. We are the beneficiaries. That is the truth. Spielberg on Saving Private Ryan in Time Magazine (The following is satirical based on this week's Time magazine interview report about Steven Spielberg.) Saving Private Ryan focuses on the increasingly troubled mind of Captain John H. Miller, leader of the U.S. army mission to retrieve Private James Ryan, whose three brothers had been recently killed in combat. "You are assigned a mission, and you do it because you believe in the mission, but there is something about killing people at close range that is excruciating," says Spielberg. "Perhaps the Nazis are leading double lives. But they are, many of them, reasonable and civilized too." Killing them, he says, has unintended consequences. "It's bound to try a man's soul, so it was very important to me to show Miller struggling to keep his soul intact." We don't demonize our targets," Spielberg added. "They're individuals. They have families." Indeed, there is an entirely fictional scene in the movie in which Miller and his German opposite number meet and talk calmly, with the latter getting a chance to make his case for the creation of Nazi Aryan world domination. That scene means everything to screenwriter Tony Kushner and Spielberg. "The only thing that's going to solve this is rational minds, a lot of sitting down and talking until you're blue in the gills," says Spielberg. Without that exchange, "I would have been making a Charles Bronson movie—good guys vs. bad guys and Americans killing Germans without any context. And I was never going to make that picture." Haaretz Doesn't Like Spielberg Film Either Despite the statements from director Steven Spielberg and screenwriter Tony Kushner that clearly indicate that Munich offers moral equivalence between terrorists who kill civilians and soldiers (and intelligence agents) who kill those terrorists, some have taken the position that it is premature to criticize Spielberg and the film before seeing it. For those doubters, a review in Haaretz - not exactly a hotbed of right-wing/anti-Palestinian propaganda - should lead to an understanding that it's not just paranoid ultra-Zionists who are going to be offended by the film. As the Haaretz piece states: Israelis don't speak to one another the way Spielberg thinks they do ... nor do they behave the way in which he portrays them as behaving. And most of them don't have significant doubts regarding the Israeli government's decision to hunt and assassinate the perpetrators of the massacre at the Munich Olympics. It might be a discussion worthy of some debate, but the debate provoked by this film is too simplistic and righteous for Israelis to have any interest in dealing with it... The movie was "inspired" by the story, as the producers tell us at its onset, but does not stick to it faithfully. The book upon which it was based, Revenge, is highly controversial, and one can't expect the film to draw the correct conclusions when the historical line from which it is drawn is flawed. In conclusion, the Haaretz article says that "Hollywood filmmakers may not be best suited to deal with such heated matters. They should stick to their own stories." Good Jews Love Terrorists This week's Time magazine interview with Steven Spielberg about Munich, Spielberg's new movie, states that: There is an entirely fictional scene in the movie in which Avner and his Palestinian opposite number meet and talk calmly, with the latter getting a chance to make his case for the creation of a homeland for his people. That scene means everything to Kushner and Spielberg. 'The only thing that's going to solve this is rational minds, a lot of sitting down and talking until you're blue in the gills,' says Spielberg. How original. In Golda's Balcony, the recent Broadway play about pre-state Zionist leader and Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir, there is an entirely fictional scene in which Meir laments that Palestinians do not also have a homeland. Of course, in real life Meir rejected any territorial concessions to Palestinians and even rejected the notion of a Palestinian people, but art is art and Jews must be "humanized" to love his or her enemy. And let's not forget Victory at Entebbe, one of the films about the IDF's heroic rescue of 103 hostages of an Air France flight hijacked by Palestinian and German terrorists. In that film, there is an entirely fictional scene in which mission commander Yoni Netanyahu, in preparation for the raid in which he lost his life, expresses sympathy for terrorists and for the Palestinian cause. Of course, in real life, Netanyahu, just like his father and his younger bother Binyamin, was a supporter of the Herut ideology and wrote, in Self Portrait Of A Hero: The Letters of Jonathan Netanyahu: "the Arabs haven`t abandoned their basic aim of destroying the State; but the self-delusion and self-deception that have always plagued the Jews are at work again." But don't complain. After all, how could Yoni be "humanized" if he harbored hatred toward nice Palestinian hijackers? And let's not forget Voyage of Terror: The Achille Lauro Affair, about the hijacking of a cruise ship by Palestinian terrorists and the murder by those terrorists of Leon Klinghoffer, a Jewish New Yorker who was shot in the head, his wheelchair-bound body thrown overboard. In an entirely fictional scene, Marilyn Klinghoffer, Leon`s wife, expresses sympathy and even understanding for the PLO`s terror against civilians. After Marilyn showed her humanity by loving her husband's murderer, I sure felt sympathy for her and poor Leon! What's that, you say? In real life Marilyn and her children have battled for the PLO for two decades? Please, be quiet, don't take away their humanity. I have a few other great ideas for upcoming films: - The Koby Mandell Story: In 2001, Koby and his friend Yosef Ish Ran, both 13, were brutally stoned to death while hiking around Tekoa, their Gush Etzion community. How about an entirely fictional scene, in which just before Koby and Yosef were stoned to death, Koby, Yosef and the Palestinian terrorists meet and talk calmly, with the latter getting a chance to make their case for the creation of a homeland for their people? As Steve Spielberg says, the only thing that's going to solve this is rational minds, a lot of sitting down and talking until you're blue in the gills. - Maalot: In 1974, PLO terrorists held 100 schoolchildren and their teachers hostage, and ultimately sprayed the kids with machine-gun fire. 26 people (21 of whom were students) were murdered, 66 others were wounded. Boring! How about an entirely fictional scene, in which the schoolchildren and the PLO terrorists meet and talk calmly, with the latter getting a chance to make their case for the creation of a homeland for their people? - Let's Roll - The Story of Flight 93: On September 11, 2001, after his flight was hijacked, learning that three other airplanes had already been crashed into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, Todd Beamer shouted "let's roll" as he and other passengers rolled a food cart at the terrorists... Whatever, you know the rest. Aren't we all sick of the same old boring 9/11 story? What's needed is an entirely fictional scene, in which Beamer and the hijackers meet and talk calmly over some leftover coffee and tea from the food cart, with the latter getting a chance to make their case for the creation of world domination by Osama bin Laden. After all, the only thing that's going to solve this is rational minds, a lot of sitting down and talking until you're blue in the gills. Gotta go and ask screenwriter Robert Avrech if he thinks any of my movie ideas will have a shot of making me the next Spielberg. Tuesday, December 06, 2005
Same Old Omar After the season, Baseball America listed each team's top ten prospects. For the Mets, the top four prospects were Lastings Milledge, Yusmeiro Petit, Gaby Hernandez and Mike Jacobs. Petit and Jacobs were traded to the Marlins for 33 year old Carlos Delgado, while Hernandez (and another prospect to be named) was traded to the Marlins for Paul Lo Duca, also 33. Trading three of your top four prospects for Delgado and Lo Duca, both high-salaried players in their 30's, is crazy. Lo Duca is not bad, but appears to be starting the inevitable downslide that happens to all catchers in their 30's. Already, Lo Duca cannot throw runners out, with 78 percent of runners stealing bases off of him. The Mets will also give up their first round pick to the Phillies as compensation for signing Billy Wagner. Bottom line: The Mets will be a very old and expensive team in 2008 and beyond. While on paper they look good for '06 and '07, with Willie Randolph managing, even with the National League's highest payroll a World Series is quite unlikely. Same Old Herm It's getting boring writing each week about the Jets' increasingly sorry state. Here are quick thoughts on Sunday's loss to New England: 1. The playcalling on both sides of the ball late in the second quarter demonstrated the ineptitude of the Jets' coaching staff. Behind 3-0 with 3rd and 5 at the Patriots 20 (after a sack and fumble that was called back due to offsetting penalties), the Jets handed the ball off to Curtis Martin, who ran straight up the middle for no gain. After the game, Herm Edwards admitted that he was afraid that if a pass was called it would result in a sack, so he decided to "take the points." Herm always "takes the points" and plays to lose in these types of situations. With the Jets going nowhere, the failure to even try for a touchdown is pathetic. 2. On the ensuing drive by the Patriots, which started with a minute left in the first half, the Jets played a zone defense, with seven defensive backs. Tom Brady had all the time he could ever ask for to pick apart the Jets secondary. The Jets were fortunate that New England didn't score a touchdown; instead they settled for a short field goal. 3. That drive got a boost because Mike Nugent's kickoff was very short, to the 25 yard line. Nugent's other kickoff only went to the 15. His 38 yard field goal was low and wobbly. Bottom line: Nugent looks like he has an average leg at best, hardly warranting a high second round draft pick. 4. Quoting Herm, CBS commentator Randy Cross said that any Jets drive that ends in a kick is a successful drive. By that standard, the Jets did great on Sunday, since in addition to Nugent's field goal, Ben Graham punted six times. Presumably, Edwards and Cross are unaware that punting the ball does not result in points. In QB Brooks Bollinger's four road starts, the Jets have scored a combined total of nine points, an average of 2.25 points per game. 5. In his postgame press conference, Herm does said Bollinger is doing the best he can. While I'm not a big Bollinger fan, that's an unfair insult to Bollinger. If the Jets would open up their offense in the first half of games and play for touchdowns rather than punts and an occasional field goal, Bollinger could be fairly evaluated. Instead, he's still being handcuffed and shown little confidence by the coaching staff. 6. Bollinger threw one nice pass to Justin McCareins in the end zone. The ball was a yard or two overthrown, but McCareins didn't even make an effort to catch it. McCareins, who was acquired for a high second round pick prior to the 2004 draft, has been completely listless and a huge disappointment, another of GM Terry Bradway's failed acquisitions. NY1 Covers Everything Except Hockey NY1 obsessively covers everything and anything that goes on in New York City. Everything and anything, that is, except for hockey, particularly the New York Rangers. Last night, for the first time in a long time, I watched NY1's Sports on 1 show, which appears from 11:30-12:30. The host Tom McDonald, mentioned that Jason Diamos, who covers hockey for the New York Times, would appear as his guest. McDonald then admitted that the show rarely covers hockey and even said that he isn't much of a hockey fan, and that he doubted that more than a few New York sports fans could name five players on the Rangers. When Diamos appeared, McDonald displayed incredible ignorance. He was only vaguely aware of the 15 round shootout in which the Rangers defeated the Washington Caps ten days ago. He was unfamiliar with Marek Malik, the Rangers' defenseman who very improbably scored the winning goal in the shootout. He referred to Martin Rucinsky, a Rangers forward, as an enforcer type player whose injury made the team soft, not understanding that the Rucinsky injury actually made the Rangers more offensively inept. He said that he liked the new rules but then demonstrated ignorance about those rules. For whatever reason, many sports fans have less interest in the NHL than MLB, the NFL or the NBA. That's their prerogative, but as the host of a nightly televised sports show, McDonald's disinterest or complete lack of even basic knowledge is completely unprofessional. Fortunately, I rarely watch Sports on 1, and for years I haven't listened to WFAN's Mike Francesa/Chris Russo show. Francesa and Russo are even worse than McDonald, because while they concede having little interest in hockey, that does not stop them from expressing their opinions. They used to serve as supporters of ex-Rangers GM Neil Smith despite having no understanding of the merits of Smith's personnel moves, and most memorably, when the Rangers acquired Mark Messier in 1991, they described Messier as a low-scoring player whose main talents were leadership and toughness. Messier ultimately retired with 1887 career points, second only to Wayne Gretzky. Monday, December 05, 2005
Future Presentations Work and personal requirements, along with a desire to make it to Madison Square Garden in time for tonight's opening faceoff, will probably prevent me from posting today. In the next couple of days, I hope to post my thoughts about the latest Jets loss (same old Herm), the latest Mets trade (same old Omar), the latest in the Slifkin controversy (disturbing, confusing and vague), and Rabbi Yitzchok Adlerstein's latest Cross-Currents post (a refreshingly candid and interesting analysis). Sunday, December 04, 2005
Steven Spielberg's Moral Equivalence Steven Spielberg expresses pride in an interview with Time magazine that Munich - his new film about the murder of 11 Israeli athletes at the 1972 Olympics by Palestinian and German terrorists - doesn't "demonize" either Israelis or Palestinians. "We don't demonize our targets," Spielberg said. "They're individuals. They have families." Perhaps one of these days Spielberg will direct a film about 9/11, and make sure not to demonize either the terrorists hijacking the four planes or the passengers on those planes and those in the World Trade Center. After all, they're all individuals. They all have families. In July, I wrote a column in the Jewish Press criticizing Spielberg in more detail. Oslo and Iraq During the Oslo process, I was angered and outraged by the lack of integrity of those on the political left who insisted on support for continued concessions to Yasser Arafat and the PLO, even as suicide bombings became frequent and Arafat took no action against Hamas, instead shielding their leaders from the IDF. It was obvious to me that the Oslo supporters simply could not accept and admit that their (perhaps) noble experiment had been a terrible failure. While the analogy is not a perfect one, something similar is now happening with respect to the U.S. occupation of Iraq. Most of those who supported the invasion and occupation refuse to acknowledge how disastrous the situation has become. U.S. soldiers are being sent on one long tour of duty after another, with higher and higher chances of returning dead or seriously wounded. I am not calling for a withdrawal from Iraq. What I am calling for is for the Bush Administration to publicly take responsibility for the current fiasco, and to articulate to American citizens what its goals in Iraq are and how it intends to reach those goals. Until President Bush admits the mistakes that have resulted in so many dead and maimed American soldiers, those who initially supported the Iraq war have a moral duty to criticize him. As difficult as it may be to find oneself appearing to be on the same side as the anti-war/anti-U.S./anti-Israel extremists, our obligations to the soldiers protecting this country require us to speak candidly about our government's failings toward those soldiers. | "
