Blog neighborhood news. Did I mention that Winds of Change - inventor of the blogburst and one of my favorite public affairs blogs of 2002 - is back, and now a group effort?
UPDATE: I am pleased to report that Imshin is back also, refreshed after her break and posting up a storm about the upcoming election. She has decided to take care of herself and disable comments - not the first blogger to do so. Good for you, Imshin. It's your blog - make it comfortable for you.
Kesher Talk
Saturday, January 11, 2003
Euroweenie idiotarian watch Dept. Today is Gretta Duisenberg Day over at lgf. Gretta who? Well, if Vanessa Redgrave was married to Paul O'Neil and they both lived in a country where 70% of the Jews were deported and exterminated by the Nazis, she'd be Gretta Duisenberg. She's not a professional actress, but she sure is a drama queen.
Michael Visser was keeping on her tail last fall (scroll down). Many on this comment thread, Photon Courier, the Weisenthal Center, and this site on the Hunger Winter, debunk her latest idiotic comments. The Weisenthal Center also has an anti-Duisenberg petition.
Kesher Talk: We pick the great links out of endless lgf comment threads so you don't have to!
Michael Visser was keeping on her tail last fall (scroll down). Many on this comment thread, Photon Courier, the Weisenthal Center, and this site on the Hunger Winter, debunk her latest idiotic comments. The Weisenthal Center also has an anti-Duisenberg petition.
Kesher Talk: We pick the great links out of endless lgf comment threads so you don't have to!
I stole this Maariv article from Imshin. It has two opposing statements from two Arafat advisors. One is Abu Sharif, who is, as the author says, known to be moderate. In his statement he advocates a two-state solution, but he also deems the "right of return" unpractical and not serious. The second one is someone who's last name is Habash, who says: "For us, the refugee issue is a winning card, because it means the destruction of the state of Israel".
The author thinks that Arafat prefers the latter, which I have no doubt about. But then he goes on analyzing Arafat's subtle endorsement of Mitzna as the next Israeli PM. His theory is: Mitzna is bad for Arafat, since he will be making some generous offers to Arafat, which Arafat knows he will have to refuse, thus exposing himself as the no-good SOB that he is. And since Mitzna is bad for Arafat, Arafat has to hint that he favors him, since most Israelis will not vote for someone whom Arafat favors. This is a stupid theory. Anyone who does not keep his head in the sand for most of the day already knows who Arafat really is. No more evidence is needed. And then there are people who will support him no matter what, for all kinds of idiotic reasons. No evidence will bother them any more than it did so far.
It is true that Arafat might be hoping that Mitzna will help him regain at least some of the legitimacy that he had lost. But I think what really is happening is that deep down Arafat knows that Mitzna's chance to be elected is very slim, if any, with or without his endorsement. So this endorsement is there largely to show that he, Arafat, is always willing to negotiate, and it is the evil Sharon who would not. I think it is one of his last pathetic efforts to float, by grabbing however small piece of wood he can find. I think Arafat is as good as gone. And I think that we will soon find out whether he was the real problem, or just a symptom.
The author thinks that Arafat prefers the latter, which I have no doubt about. But then he goes on analyzing Arafat's subtle endorsement of Mitzna as the next Israeli PM. His theory is: Mitzna is bad for Arafat, since he will be making some generous offers to Arafat, which Arafat knows he will have to refuse, thus exposing himself as the no-good SOB that he is. And since Mitzna is bad for Arafat, Arafat has to hint that he favors him, since most Israelis will not vote for someone whom Arafat favors. This is a stupid theory. Anyone who does not keep his head in the sand for most of the day already knows who Arafat really is. No more evidence is needed. And then there are people who will support him no matter what, for all kinds of idiotic reasons. No evidence will bother them any more than it did so far.
It is true that Arafat might be hoping that Mitzna will help him regain at least some of the legitimacy that he had lost. But I think what really is happening is that deep down Arafat knows that Mitzna's chance to be elected is very slim, if any, with or without his endorsement. So this endorsement is there largely to show that he, Arafat, is always willing to negotiate, and it is the evil Sharon who would not. I think it is one of his last pathetic efforts to float, by grabbing however small piece of wood he can find. I think Arafat is as good as gone. And I think that we will soon find out whether he was the real problem, or just a symptom.
Friday, January 10, 2003
One campaign ad has been yanked off the air, and part of another removed: one by an Arab party RAAM, another by a religious party Love of Israel. In the first one the party's leader, Abdel Malk Dahamsheh, was encouraging "martyrs" and intifada, as well as calling Sharon names. In the second one, a segment was showing rabbi Caduri giving blessings for votes, which is illegal. I don't know whether to laugh or to cry.
From Yoel Marcus in Haaretz:
I disagree: "suspected" is not the same as "guilty."
In a normal country, the first thing expected of a prime minister suspected of bribe-taking, fraud and breach of trust, who is being questioned by the police, is to step aside, right then and there.
I disagree: "suspected" is not the same as "guilty."
This is a good decision: A panel of 11 Supreme Court justices on Thursday overturned the Central Elections Committee's decisions to disqualify Arab MKs Ahmed Tibi, Azmi Bishara and the Balad party from running in the January 28 election. The court also upheld the decisions to allow far-right activist Baruch Marzel to run, and to disqualify Likud candidates Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz and Moshe Feiglin.
This stinks, however. A far more reasonable thing would be for Mitzna to call a press conferense in response to Sharon's, and for the elections comission to give it the same amount of broadcasting time as Sharon would have gotten.
This is a transcript of Sharon's speech that was pulled off the air.
This stinks, however. A far more reasonable thing would be for Mitzna to call a press conferense in response to Sharon's, and for the elections comission to give it the same amount of broadcasting time as Sharon would have gotten.
This is a transcript of Sharon's speech that was pulled off the air.
My Kingdom for a Copy Editor: They don't pay me to edit, but this Reuters story contains a paragraph that just doesn't sound right:
Israeli forces killed suicide bombers? Oddly Enough, I guess.
Iraq has paid millions of dollars to families of Palestinians, including those of suicide bombers, killed by Israeli forces since the start of the uprising in September 2000.
Israeli forces killed suicide bombers? Oddly Enough, I guess.
Kesher Talk salutes a moderate Muslim man of action: Many people have complained that moderate Muslims, while seemingly a majority of the Muslim populace, never seem to get involved or counter the activities of their more radical peers. The Daily News illustrates a great example of a moderate Muslim man of action.
Muslim gas station attendant Syed Ali saved the Brooklyn synagogue Young Israel of Kings Bay yesterday from being torched by a Bosnian Muslim.
Syed was working at the Amoco station on Ocean Ave. in Sheepshead Bay at about 4 a.m. when he sold $2 worth of fuel to the alleged would-be arsonist.
The Pakistani immigrant said he watched in disbelief as Sead Jakup, 22, took the canister across the street and began dousing the Young Israel of Kings Bay synagogue.
Ali quickly called 911, and cops arrived before Jakup, could set the temple ablaze.
"Mr. Ali saved the shul [synagogue]," said Allen Popper, president of the synagogue. "He's a hero."
Ali said that Jakup first asked to pump gas into a plastic bucket. Assuming the man's car had run out of fuel, Ali gave him a gas can to fill up.
He said he "couldn't believe my eyes" when Jakup marched straight to the synagogue. "I saw him spilling gas on the sign in front of the synagogue," Ali said. "Then, he started spilling it onto the door - that is when I called 911."
But as Ali waited for the cops, Jakup returned, demanding a refill. Jakup was screaming, "I want more gas!" as he kicked the cashier's booth Ali was in. Police cars and fire trucks pulled up as Jakup allegedly tried to smash the booth's glass door with a trash can.
Ali declined to accept the mantle of hero, saying he did only what any responsible person would do. "It's a sacred place he was going to destroy," Ali said.
Muslim gas station attendant Syed Ali saved the Brooklyn synagogue Young Israel of Kings Bay yesterday from being torched by a Bosnian Muslim.
Syed was working at the Amoco station on Ocean Ave. in Sheepshead Bay at about 4 a.m. when he sold $2 worth of fuel to the alleged would-be arsonist.
The Pakistani immigrant said he watched in disbelief as Sead Jakup, 22, took the canister across the street and began dousing the Young Israel of Kings Bay synagogue.
Ali quickly called 911, and cops arrived before Jakup, could set the temple ablaze.
"Mr. Ali saved the shul [synagogue]," said Allen Popper, president of the synagogue. "He's a hero."
Ali said that Jakup first asked to pump gas into a plastic bucket. Assuming the man's car had run out of fuel, Ali gave him a gas can to fill up.
He said he "couldn't believe my eyes" when Jakup marched straight to the synagogue. "I saw him spilling gas on the sign in front of the synagogue," Ali said. "Then, he started spilling it onto the door - that is when I called 911."
But as Ali waited for the cops, Jakup returned, demanding a refill. Jakup was screaming, "I want more gas!" as he kicked the cashier's booth Ali was in. Police cars and fire trucks pulled up as Jakup allegedly tried to smash the booth's glass door with a trash can.
Ali declined to accept the mantle of hero, saying he did only what any responsible person would do. "It's a sacred place he was going to destroy," Ali said.
JDate -- an honest response: So often when you're dating, you never get clarity. I solicited a charming 31 year old on Jdate for a nice evening out and this was her response. Enjoy.
Hi- sorry it's taken me a while to get back to you but I have been away on vacation. you are a little young for me. i am looking for my husband!!!!
Who represents Jews as a community in America? What constitutes a "Major American Jewish Organization"? This is a rough one. I've tangled with the first question before (you can find previous posts in the Subject index). The issue arose again last month when, after nearly five years of applications and appeals, Meretz USA's bid to join the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations was officially rejected.
According to an official at the conference, the American Jewish community's main pro-Israel umbrella organization, Meretz USA did not meet the definition of a "major" Jewish organization. But officials from the left-wing Meretz USA have alleged that the decision was motivated by political bias. "We were slighted for four-and-a-half years, given the run-around and ultimately, the membership committee gave a ruling based on non-specific criteria," said Charney Bromberg, executive director of Meretz USA. Bromberg argued that voting members opposed to the group's political positions placed undue focus on its small budget and membership, all but ignoring its overall impact on the community.
According to their website, Meretz USA is a "progressive Zionist organization that educates Americans about issues of civil rights and peace in Israel, and promotes the values of peace, pluralism and democracy in Israel, as envisioned by prophetic Judaism and the Zionist pioneers and as enshrined in Israel's Declaration of Independence."
The President Conference criteria state that, in order to qualify as a member, a group must be "an incorporated major national American Jewish organization in continuous operation for at least five years," have a paid executive director and professional staff and have democratically elected officers and board members. Member groups must also be able to meet annual conference dues requirements and maintain "a significant focus of programmatic and policy activities" on issues of concern to the Presidents Conference, including "strengthening the America-Israel relationship" and "protecting and enhancing the security and dignity of Jews abroad."
A seat on the conference means membership in the representative body of American Jewry, which takes policy positions on major issues of Jewish concern and advocates for those issues in Washington and abroad.
Rabbi Eric Yoffie, president of the Union of American Hebrew Congregations (the Reform movement), told JTA that “Meretz, in comparison to many other members of the conference, absolutely has a right to be represented there." However, Morton Klein, president of the Zionist Organization of America, said that Meretz “is so tiny, with only a couple of employees, that it would really make a mockery of the claim that this is a conference of major organizations.”
At the same time Meretz USA got the bum rush, the conference denied adjunct membership to the Reconstructionist Rabbinical Association.
As much as I have scoffed at the sniping of Tikkun against the "right-wing bias" of the Conference, I'm suspicious of this latest incident. The Conference needs to formalize and dictate its internal policies, pronto.
Since Forward editorials do not remain on their website, I reprint below their take on the Conference controversy:
Watch this space. Clashes within the community over who represents Jews and what do Jews stand for will only get more intense.
According to an official at the conference, the American Jewish community's main pro-Israel umbrella organization, Meretz USA did not meet the definition of a "major" Jewish organization. But officials from the left-wing Meretz USA have alleged that the decision was motivated by political bias. "We were slighted for four-and-a-half years, given the run-around and ultimately, the membership committee gave a ruling based on non-specific criteria," said Charney Bromberg, executive director of Meretz USA. Bromberg argued that voting members opposed to the group's political positions placed undue focus on its small budget and membership, all but ignoring its overall impact on the community.
According to their website, Meretz USA is a "progressive Zionist organization that educates Americans about issues of civil rights and peace in Israel, and promotes the values of peace, pluralism and democracy in Israel, as envisioned by prophetic Judaism and the Zionist pioneers and as enshrined in Israel's Declaration of Independence."
The President Conference criteria state that, in order to qualify as a member, a group must be "an incorporated major national American Jewish organization in continuous operation for at least five years," have a paid executive director and professional staff and have democratically elected officers and board members. Member groups must also be able to meet annual conference dues requirements and maintain "a significant focus of programmatic and policy activities" on issues of concern to the Presidents Conference, including "strengthening the America-Israel relationship" and "protecting and enhancing the security and dignity of Jews abroad."
A seat on the conference means membership in the representative body of American Jewry, which takes policy positions on major issues of Jewish concern and advocates for those issues in Washington and abroad.
Rabbi Eric Yoffie, president of the Union of American Hebrew Congregations (the Reform movement), told JTA that “Meretz, in comparison to many other members of the conference, absolutely has a right to be represented there." However, Morton Klein, president of the Zionist Organization of America, said that Meretz “is so tiny, with only a couple of employees, that it would really make a mockery of the claim that this is a conference of major organizations.”
At the same time Meretz USA got the bum rush, the conference denied adjunct membership to the Reconstructionist Rabbinical Association.
As much as I have scoffed at the sniping of Tikkun against the "right-wing bias" of the Conference, I'm suspicious of this latest incident. The Conference needs to formalize and dictate its internal policies, pronto.
Since Forward editorials do not remain on their website, I reprint below their take on the Conference controversy:
Once again, the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations has given in to what looks suspiciously like political bias by turning down the membership applications of two organizations that deserve to be accepted.
The rejected organizations, Meretz USA and the Reconstructionist Rabbinical Association, were nominally rejected on a variety of grounds, mainly revolving around the argument that they are too small to be considered "major" organizations. But their real failing seems to be excessive liberalism.
One of the newcomers, Meretz USA, had been recommended for rejection by the conference's membership committee after a review and appeals process that has dragged on for nearly five years. The committee said the group fails to meet a murky set of standards for "major" status, including some combination of membership, budget, national reach and public impact. Admittedly, Meretz USA is not a mass movement. But, as the group has argued repeatedly, neither are some of the other groups already sheltered under the conference's umbrella. Moreover, it is the American affiliate of a major Israeli political party; as such it represents a major Jewish viewpoint. Its rejection dishonors the Presidents Conference more than it dishonors Meretz.
As for the Reconstructionist Rabbinical Association, its application — for associate or non-voting membership — had actually been recommended for approval by the membership committee. In being rejected by the full conference, it appears to have been caught up in the anti-liberal wave aimed at Meretz.
The suggestion that the Presidents Conference genuinely limits its membership to major groups might have stood up to scrutiny two or three decades ago, when it consisted of organizations that could claim either mass membership or a powerful grip on the national imagination. Those days are long gone, however. Today, thanks to loose admissions procedures in the first decades after 1967, the conference has ballooned into an ungainly collection of dozens of groups both large and small, major and minor, powerful and laughable. What they share is a political cast, especially on Israel-related matters, that puts the conference as a whole decidedly to the right of the larger community it claims to represent.
We've long taken the position that the Presidents Conference plays a legitimate and essential role in giving voice to American Jewry's solidarity with the Jewish state. If there weren't a conference, it would have to be invented. As now configured, though, this body is sorely in need of reinventing. Some clear rules, transparent governing structures and perhaps a sweeping membership review are in order. That should be at the top of the agenda of the next chairman.
Watch this space. Clashes within the community over who represents Jews and what do Jews stand for will only get more intense.
Sort of tough love for Palestinians and their fans. You know you've got a dysfunctional society when even your buddy Amira Hass has harsh words for you.
I have to give you credit, Amira, for a concise tour of the more common Western do-gooder social pathologies. (Except for fear of physical harm, which is just common sense. No wonder you de-emphasized it.) Something tells me you are in the process of getting mugged by reality. It will be interesting to see if your NGO buddies rise to your challenge or, um, delegitimize you.
(via Haggai, who fought the good fight with me on one lgf thread against wholesale transfer of the Palestinians - a tempting but immoral and unworkable idea.)
PS Lynn B has a great example of the kind of idealistic dolt Amira is sort of maybe gently admonishing.
. . . some of [Fatah] express opposition to the bombings, but in vague terms qualified with buts, in interviews in esoteric journals or distant newspapers. In other cases, they speak out against the attacks from behind closed doors or in meetings with foreign diplomats. But they don't dare come out in the open in a planned campaign against what the conventional wisdom says is the popular view - that is, the attacks inside Israel are an appropriate response to the killing and destruction perpetrated by the IDF.But what's really impressive is that she nails the hypocritical little butts of the NGO do-gooder groupies.
Those international activists emphasize that they support nonviolent civil disobedience. Their connection with Palestinian activists is based on belief in universal, trans-nationalist values, the solidarity of the oppressed. But those same Palestinian social and civil activists, including academics and others identified with the Palestinian intellectual elite, don't dare go to their publics and start an educational campaign against the rite of death and killing. Many of them say in private conversations that not only must the attacks be condemned on pragmatic grounds, since because of the attacks the shocked international community forgets the Israeli occupation and its horrors, but on moral grounds, the universal grounds of humanity. [Emphasis mine]Gee, I'm glad that's clear. I only wish the international community were as shocked as you think it is. There would be many fewer dead Israelis and Palestinians. But if you guys are starting to come around to the idea that Jews are humans - hey, any bit of progress is welcome.
Quite a few of them can be heard saying "we must not deteriorate to the moral level of the Israeli occupiers," . . .Honey, you haven't yet risen to the moral level of the Israeli "occupiers." When they start massacring Olympic athletes, pushing disabled old people off decks of ships, blowing themselves up in crowded Palestinian town squares, shooting babies in their cradles, brainwashing impressionable teenagers into killing machines, and randomly lynching and beating their own people, then you can start to worry.
. . . but they don't dare to do so openly and systematically, except for the rare signature on this or that petition. Maybe some of them are afraid they will be accused of being alienated intellectuals, for whom it's easy to preach "between overseas trips," because they don't suffer like the ordinary people.Oh, the humanity!
Perhaps they are afraid that in an ever more Muslim society that is becoming more and more orthodox - according to the most vulgar and ignorant interpretations of Muslim orthodoxy - they will be depicted as blasphemers.And that is frightening why? C'mon, Amira, you can say it.
Maybe they are afraid of being delegitimized or of physical harm.Physical harm. Gee, you think? Just like the "morally deteriorated" Jewish "occupiers" who kill blasphemers against Judaism? Right. All those secular Israelis are quaking in their boots. (And don't you just love the way "delegitimization" and "physical harm" are equivalent in these folks' universe? I think Amira just sort of slipped "physical harm" in there at the end hoping no one would notice that particular reason. I mean, it's certainly not a major motivating factor like, oh, being "accused of being alienated intellectuals," for example.)
I have to give you credit, Amira, for a concise tour of the more common Western do-gooder social pathologies. (Except for fear of physical harm, which is just common sense. No wonder you de-emphasized it.) Something tells me you are in the process of getting mugged by reality. It will be interesting to see if your NGO buddies rise to your challenge or, um, delegitimize you.
(via Haggai, who fought the good fight with me on one lgf thread against wholesale transfer of the Palestinians - a tempting but immoral and unworkable idea.)
PS Lynn B has a great example of the kind of idealistic dolt Amira is sort of maybe gently admonishing.
Thursday, January 09, 2003
The elusive Holocaust movie. Thane Rosenbaum - novelist, writing teacher, and child of Holocaust survivors - critiques the new generation of Holocaust films. Coincidentally, I saw "The Pianist" the night before I read this. My fathers' parents were from Warsaw (they had emigrated to Berlin before my father was born), and they spent the war fleeing the Nazis, so the film was very personal for me, maybe more so than if it had taken place in a concentration camp. But as far as I know, my family didn't have to hide starving for months at a time.
My main complaint about "Schindler's List" was that the concentration camp inmates looked too clean and well-fed. I don't have that complaint about "The Pianist."
My main complaint about "Schindler's List" was that the concentration camp inmates looked too clean and well-fed. I don't have that complaint about "The Pianist."
NEW: Get Kesher Talk delivered by e-mail: See the subscription form in the left-hand column.
Readers can now receive regular updates of Kesher Talk content via e-mail, all thanks to the miracle of Bloglet.
Readers can now receive regular updates of Kesher Talk content via e-mail, all thanks to the miracle of Bloglet.
As the Economist Skews: The magazine has a decent article on the nature of conspiracy theories and theorists. In the process of thumping some of the more absurd theories, however, the Economist manages to misrepresent Israeli-Palestinian history.
Since when does being outvoted in the UN constitute the right to "victimhood"? Does that mean that Israel qualifies as a "victim"?
I could argue that it was primarily the dictatorships of the "Eastern" countries that voted against establishing Israel, versus the free "Western" countries. Or that the "120 future members" which the Economist figures would have voted against Israel are now and would likely have been dictatorships as well. However, there is no point, because once you get into a huff about anything involving the UN, you've probably already lost your argument.
The UN tends to be where good causes, intriguing ideas, and bright intentions go to fester and rot.
In 1917, war-pressed Britain sought to curry favour with the growing Zionist movement by promising a “Jewish national home” in Palestine. The Palestinians, nine-tenths of the territory's population at the time, were not consulted. Thirty years later, when the UN voted to give Jews 53% of the land, the 13 “Eastern” countries that objected were overruled by 33 “Western” countries, which between them ruled over some 120 future members that surely would have voted otherwise had they been able to. Small wonder Palestinians see the world through a lens of victimhood.
Since when does being outvoted in the UN constitute the right to "victimhood"? Does that mean that Israel qualifies as a "victim"?
I could argue that it was primarily the dictatorships of the "Eastern" countries that voted against establishing Israel, versus the free "Western" countries. Or that the "120 future members" which the Economist figures would have voted against Israel are now and would likely have been dictatorships as well. However, there is no point, because once you get into a huff about anything involving the UN, you've probably already lost your argument.
The UN tends to be where good causes, intriguing ideas, and bright intentions go to fester and rot.
Wednesday, January 08, 2003
My 2 cents on Lieberman: Just my opinion, take it or leave it:
Lieberman should consider himself lucky that he has such a convenient excuse for why he can't win the Presidency. Of course he can say that he doesn't think the country is ready for a Jewish President and people will have to take him at his word.
In reality, though, he just doesn't have a chance to win the Democratic nomination, let alone a presidential election. If there was any lesson from the just concluded midterm election it is that Democrats need to clearly differentiate their candidates if they want a chance to beat a Republican that looks almost identical on the issues. Lieberman is about as conservative a Democrat as there is in the higher strata of the Democratic Party. That means he was an excellent choice in 2000 and a horrendous, miserable, guaranteed failure of a candidate for 2004. We saw it with the nomination of Nancy Pelosi. The Dems know that their only shot is to go hard left and hope that there are enough people dissatisfied with the current situation to go with the clear alternative. Putting a Repub-lite on the ballot cannot work and Lieberman knows it, ergo, the flip-flop. Apparently he decided that being known as wishy-washy on the issues is better than being known as conservative. I can't argue with his logic. He flip-flopped plenty in 2000 and came out no worse for wear. Why not try it again? But this time he flipped too far. By caving on Israel he appears both disingenous and self-effacing. If he can't be trusted on Israel, when can we trust him?
And so, when it will become increasingly apparent that his support base has dried up, he will sheepishly infer that his assessment of the voting public indicates a subtle intolerance for the idea of a Jewish President. And then he'll wait and run again when the climate is more suitable. A wonderfully effective political strategy.
As for my personal experience with Joe Lieberman, I met him on two occasions, one in a professional capacity the other casual (also at Kesher Israel). He was just as polite and engaging when I approached him after shul as he was when it was his job to be. He is the only high ranking politician I've talked to who actually asked questions
about me. The others engaged me in conversation, but only as far as it pertained to them. A true mentsch and a credit to his people.
Lieberman should consider himself lucky that he has such a convenient excuse for why he can't win the Presidency. Of course he can say that he doesn't think the country is ready for a Jewish President and people will have to take him at his word.
In reality, though, he just doesn't have a chance to win the Democratic nomination, let alone a presidential election. If there was any lesson from the just concluded midterm election it is that Democrats need to clearly differentiate their candidates if they want a chance to beat a Republican that looks almost identical on the issues. Lieberman is about as conservative a Democrat as there is in the higher strata of the Democratic Party. That means he was an excellent choice in 2000 and a horrendous, miserable, guaranteed failure of a candidate for 2004. We saw it with the nomination of Nancy Pelosi. The Dems know that their only shot is to go hard left and hope that there are enough people dissatisfied with the current situation to go with the clear alternative. Putting a Repub-lite on the ballot cannot work and Lieberman knows it, ergo, the flip-flop. Apparently he decided that being known as wishy-washy on the issues is better than being known as conservative. I can't argue with his logic. He flip-flopped plenty in 2000 and came out no worse for wear. Why not try it again? But this time he flipped too far. By caving on Israel he appears both disingenous and self-effacing. If he can't be trusted on Israel, when can we trust him?
And so, when it will become increasingly apparent that his support base has dried up, he will sheepishly infer that his assessment of the voting public indicates a subtle intolerance for the idea of a Jewish President. And then he'll wait and run again when the climate is more suitable. A wonderfully effective political strategy.
As for my personal experience with Joe Lieberman, I met him on two occasions, one in a professional capacity the other casual (also at Kesher Israel). He was just as polite and engaging when I approached him after shul as he was when it was his job to be. He is the only high ranking politician I've talked to who actually asked questions
about me. The others engaged me in conversation, but only as far as it pertained to them. A true mentsch and a credit to his people.
Transatlantic MOT backscratching. Thanks to David Adesnik at Oxblog for the link. (Blog networking in action: I schmooze David's dad at shul Saturday morning and 3 days later - a plug from Oxblog!)
Sylvia Foa, who has the unenviable job of Israel correspondent for the Village Voice (where she has to put up with ignorant hostile letters to the editor every time she does a story, no matter how sympathetic to the Palestinians she is), reports on an intriguing antidote to Saddam's nerve gas.
Green Leaf [the marijuana legalization advocacy group] cites research conducted by the U.S. Army and the Israel-based Pharmos Corporation. Rats were exposed to nerve gas and then injected with dexanabinol, a synthetic substitute for hashish. The army tests reportedly showed that the injection reduced brain damage by more than 70 percent.However, a Pharmos researcher "pooh-poohed the notion that a joint would work just as well." Darn.
Another day, same old lies. Some commenters over at Tal G are slugging it out over (what else is new?) the birth pangs of modern Israel (initiated by someone dumping a big load of anti-Israel propaganda). If you get into these kinds of scraps on web forums, bookmark this one for some cogent arguments.
Being Jewish in a Christian Society: One time, an Asian friend who was born in the U.S. recounted a story about the first time he went to Japan, his ancestral country. He said it was weird to walk around a country and feel "part of the majority" ... he was so used to living in the U.S. as a minority that it actually made him uncomfortable "blending in" with the Japanese.
Sometimes I feel the same thing would happen to me if I went to Israel ... I've never been there, so I wonder what those who have think about this sensation. I am used to the Christmas trees, friends and relatives cleaning up by working on Christmas, kosher food stores seen and thought of as "ethnic" (though this is changing with places like Trader Joes). Then there's the U.S. misconception about Jews in general -- are we what Bart Simpson confuses for the ZZ Top-looking fellas in New York or are we banking professionals plotting to take over the world? I guess bottom-line ... it would be weird to live in a place where my religion and even part of my culture is the majority.
Thoughts?
Sometimes I feel the same thing would happen to me if I went to Israel ... I've never been there, so I wonder what those who have think about this sensation. I am used to the Christmas trees, friends and relatives cleaning up by working on Christmas, kosher food stores seen and thought of as "ethnic" (though this is changing with places like Trader Joes). Then there's the U.S. misconception about Jews in general -- are we what Bart Simpson confuses for the ZZ Top-looking fellas in New York or are we banking professionals plotting to take over the world? I guess bottom-line ... it would be weird to live in a place where my religion and even part of my culture is the majority.
Thoughts?
Mizrachim speak out. Jews who fled from formerly Arab countries are telling their stories.
Recently, more than 450 people attended a conference in Montreal to hear one witness after another discuss their experiences as Jews in the Arab world — part of an effort to raise the issue as a bargaining chip in future negotiations with the Palestinians. “I don’t think there has been any attempt to hide the fact that this is opening up a second front” for Israel and provide the ability to meet the Arab propaganda that is ongoing, with regards to the Palestinian narrative,” said Keith Landy, national president of the Canadian Jewish Congress. “What this does is allow those Jews that were expelled from Arab countries” to tell their personal stories.The first of such conferences - 50 years overdue - was held in Paris last year.
“Any future peace plan must address, as a matter of international law and morality, the material losses of Jewish individuals and community property,” Landy added. “U.N. Resolution 242 calls for a ‘just settlement of the refugee problem.’ It makes no distinction between Arab refugees and former Jewish refugees, the majority having been resettled in Israel.” [Emphasis mine.]
More violence against Jewish students. The Australasian Union of Jewish Students (AUJS) attended the annual National Union of Students (NUS) conference in Australia. One of them was pelted with cricket balls when he participated in a debate on anti-terror legislation. (via lgf comments)
More on the perils facing a Jewish President of the U.S.: Josh, I presume it is not anti-semitism per se that motivated Joe Lieberman's recent pandering to the Saudis. He is simply caving into certain pressures of perception -- trying to avoid looking like he suffers from "dual loyalty," a classic charge against Jews of favoring Israel before the U.S. A presidential candidate simply cannot withstand that kind of attack, especially when they are as wishy-washy as Lieberman.
A Jewish Guide to Shoveling Snow: This Jewish joke has been making the email rounds without listing its source. Judith helpfully pointed out that it came from a Jewish World Review article by Jordan Max.
Ariel Sharon - "The important thing is to shovel the entire width and breadth of the driveway, regardless of what anyone else thinks."
Ehud Barak - "You must shovel most of the driveway, but the exact dimensions of shoveling will be determined in discussions with our neighbors. No wait, you can shovel only in places where snow had previously fallen, but you cannot shovel in places where no snow had fallen - wait,
Yossi Sarid - "You should not shovel any part of the driveway, since you really do not have any valid historical or legal claim to the driveway, and it will soon be given back to its rightful owners."
Artscroll Hilchos Sheleg ("Laws Regarding Snow; Ashkenaz version, chapter 5) - "First approach the snow with the proper kavanah, meditating on the concept of snow removal. Recite the "...Who commanded us concerning the shoveling of snow" benediction," then take three steps back, bend the knees slightly with feet together, then look at the snow, lift shovel and dig, turning right and then left, bend knees fully, take three steps forward and deposit snow deliberately. Repeat until done, then recite the Sheheheyanu benediction, go indoors and have a hot drink, remembering to say the Shehakol brocha (see Artscroll Hilchos on Drinking Hot Liquids)..."
Tikkun Magazine - "What right do we have to violently take snow from its rightful resting place? Snow has rights: each snowflake is a unique individual, and we have absolutely no right to do anything with it. Let the snow decide for itself what it wishes to do, and then if it wishes to be shoveled, do so humanely."
Rashi - "Snow, this is a form of solid precipitation that clings to one's beard if you remain outside too long in the winter season. (Old French: neige). Shoveling is a Rabbinic precept, based on the verse in Isaiah 1:18 - "If your sins be like scarlet, they will turn as white as snows"
Birthright Israel - "It does not matter how the shoveling is done, but the very act of a young Jew shoveling snow for ten consecutive days, under proper supervision will have a lifelong impact on Jewish identity."
Meir Ben-Meir (Israeli Water Commissioner) - "Just shovel the snow as fast as you can, and ship it here. We are running out of water fast! Is anyone listening to me?"
Rabbi David Hartman - "Snow is a potent force in the world which unites all Jews. It falls on us all,regardless of religious denomination and belief, and is therefore instrumental in our understanding of Jewish unity and diversity. In fact, just this week, I was explaining the significance of snow to the Prime Minister, President Weizman, President Clinton, and His Holiness the Pope, who had asked my opinion."
The Late Lubavitcher Rebbe (from an epistle to a disciple) - "Shoveling snow is a distraction from our efforts to bring Moshiach, may He come soon, when in any case there will be no snow to shovel. So leave it and let it melt. If the Messiah does not come by Shavuos, the snow will have miraculously disappeared anyway."
A Lieberman candidacy: Many Jews I've talked to, particularly ones in my own family, have expressed concern that Lieberman's potential nomination as the Democratic candidate for president could spur anti-Jewish sentiment. I adamantly disagree with these assertions; every recent poll commissioned shows nearly non-existent anti-Semitic beliefs among the overall population.
So I'm frankly shocked and disappointed when I read in JTA News that Lieberman seems to be buying into this theory himself. As the article reports, it appears that Lieberman has been trying to prove that he's not going to agree with the Israeli lobby on every issue. In fact, he pandered to -- of all groups! -- the Saudis in his recent visit to the Middle East. He met with hateful Palestinian propagandist (aka Information Minister) Yasser Abed Rabbo as well.
As JTA reporter Matthew Berger writes:
I was a big fan of Lieberman long before he was chosen as Gore's vice-presidential running mate. I met him once at my elementary school, and saw him once at the Georgetown synagogue Kesher Israel. By all accounts, he's a genuine mensch. He stood out from many Democrats with his support for school vouchers to help the poor, and was willing to publicly discuss his faith -- anathema to many Democrats. I didn't have many qualms with his flip-flop as Gore's VP nominee; after all, it would be awkward to publicly disagree with your running mate. But I find it very disconcerting that, as his own candidate, he seems to lost some of his principle
Frankly, I'm a lot more comfortable with the heavily pro-Israel foreign policy team that Bush has established, with Rice, Rummy, Cheney, Wolfowitz, Perle, Feith and now Elliot Abrams. The Democrats don't really have many potential Pentagon and national security team appointments that would seem to favor democracy and be principled with their support of Israel in Middle East policy. Leon Feurth? Sandy Berger? Jimmy Carter? Anyone?
So I'm frankly shocked and disappointed when I read in JTA News that Lieberman seems to be buying into this theory himself. As the article reports, it appears that Lieberman has been trying to prove that he's not going to agree with the Israeli lobby on every issue. In fact, he pandered to -- of all groups! -- the Saudis in his recent visit to the Middle East. He met with hateful Palestinian propagandist (aka Information Minister) Yasser Abed Rabbo as well.
As JTA reporter Matthew Berger writes:
Lieberman has been a constently strong supporter of Israel, sponsoring last spring’s congressional resolution of solidarity with the Jewish state. He also has been a proponent of U.S. engagement to broker an Israeli-Palestinian peace.
Some American Jewish leaders therefore were shocked by Lieberman’s recent comments. The leaders say the community now sees him differently, as another politician who will say whatever is needed to get elected.
“There’s a lot of concern,” said one senior Jewish leader, who spoke on condition of anonymity. “There is a real sense I get from people that he is flip-flopping and saying what is convenient.”
I was a big fan of Lieberman long before he was chosen as Gore's vice-presidential running mate. I met him once at my elementary school, and saw him once at the Georgetown synagogue Kesher Israel. By all accounts, he's a genuine mensch. He stood out from many Democrats with his support for school vouchers to help the poor, and was willing to publicly discuss his faith -- anathema to many Democrats. I didn't have many qualms with his flip-flop as Gore's VP nominee; after all, it would be awkward to publicly disagree with your running mate. But I find it very disconcerting that, as his own candidate, he seems to lost some of his principle
Frankly, I'm a lot more comfortable with the heavily pro-Israel foreign policy team that Bush has established, with Rice, Rummy, Cheney, Wolfowitz, Perle, Feith and now Elliot Abrams. The Democrats don't really have many potential Pentagon and national security team appointments that would seem to favor democracy and be principled with their support of Israel in Middle East policy. Leon Feurth? Sandy Berger? Jimmy Carter? Anyone?
Tuesday, January 07, 2003
A little bit about myself: My Northern Virginian colleague and ever-gracious webmaster Howard Fienberg invited me to have my say on all things Jewish for Kesher Talk. So I guess it's only fair that I say a little bit about myself. I'm 21, currently a junior American University in Washington, DC. I attended Jewish day school for over 10 years (until my sophomore year in high school), and have a very strong interest in education -- particularly Jewish educational issues. I will be heading to London, England next week to spend a semester abroad; however that will not prevent me from blogging -- apparently, Internet access is prevalent there. If anyone knows about (or lives in!) the Jewish community in London (Kensington Sq. area), I'd love to hear from you. I'm also looking for a place to go for a Passover Seder when the time comes. If you have any suggestions or you're a Jewish London local, leave a message on the comments board or email me here.
As I understand, Howard attends the other big Conservative shul in the Northern Virginia area, Olam Tikvah. In contrast, I have been a member of Agudas Achim in Alexandria, Virginia for as long as I can remember. It's a terrific synagogue, and Rabbi Jack Moline -- in my judgment -- does an outstanding job in his leadership of the congregation. I'm not as familiar with the cantor and educational director there, as both arrived after I left for college. But my sister is president of their United Synagogue Youth chapter -- no small task!
I run my own personal blog All About Josh, where I discuss an eclectic mix of things in the news, including the Middle East. I used to focus a lot on domestic politics, but it's a conflict of interest with my current place of work. I may run some observational pieces about London on the site while I'm abroad; likewise, I'll blog here about the London Jewish community as I see it.
I've been a long-time reader (eh, for about a year -- that counts as long in my book) of Kesher Talk, and I'm excited to have a chance to contribute.
Shalom v'lhitraot!
As I understand, Howard attends the other big Conservative shul in the Northern Virginia area, Olam Tikvah. In contrast, I have been a member of Agudas Achim in Alexandria, Virginia for as long as I can remember. It's a terrific synagogue, and Rabbi Jack Moline -- in my judgment -- does an outstanding job in his leadership of the congregation. I'm not as familiar with the cantor and educational director there, as both arrived after I left for college. But my sister is president of their United Synagogue Youth chapter -- no small task!
I run my own personal blog All About Josh, where I discuss an eclectic mix of things in the news, including the Middle East. I used to focus a lot on domestic politics, but it's a conflict of interest with my current place of work. I may run some observational pieces about London on the site while I'm abroad; likewise, I'll blog here about the London Jewish community as I see it.
I've been a long-time reader (eh, for about a year -- that counts as long in my book) of Kesher Talk, and I'm excited to have a chance to contribute.
Shalom v'lhitraot!
Using the word neo-conservative as an anti-Semitic slur? I just caught the tail end of MSNBC's Hardball, and I saw former Republican Congressman Rep. Joe Scarborough and The Nation publisher and wunderditz Katrina Vander Huevel debating the new book on Bush's presidency out by his former speechwriter and current NRO contributor David Frum.
I caught Scarborough bashing Frum and his fellow "neo-conservatives" as (and I'm paraphrasing here) "intellectuals that are never loyal to a Republican president. These guys called Reagan an idiot, Ford stupid, they're as disloyal as everyone on the left." Now, I haven't read Frum's book and other than his daily columns and recent television appearances, I know little about the guy. But Frum is no neo-conservative -- if the word is defined as a former liberal who has embraced the conservative movement. Charles Krauthammer, Bill Bennett and Irving Kristol are three prominent neocons. Frum isn't and never has been.
David Frum always has been a conservative Republican. His formative years were during the Reagan era, after the Democratic party veered to the left in presidential elections. So what else is left by Scarborough's definition? I know little about Frum and even less about Scarborough, but the attack seemed to be targeted at Jewish conservatives. In what other context would Scarborough be using the word neo-con?
Max Boot of the WSJ wrote a terrific little piece about how neo-conservatism really doesn't mean anything today. Boot concluded that most neo-cons commonly disdain both an isolationist foreign policy and an automatic aversion to any government. Indeed, Bush's policies are essentially neo-conservative. He wants to force regime change in Iraq, and his compassionate conservatism allows room for certain government-run programs: witness faith-based charity.
So what was Scarborough's point in labeling Frum as a neo-con? Here's what Boot wrote in his column:
When Buchananites toss around "neoconservative" -- and cite names like Wolfowitz and Cohen -- it sometimes sounds as if what they really mean is "Jewish conservative." This is a malicious slur on two levels. First, many of the leading neocons aren't Jewish; Jeane Kirkpatrick, Bill Bennett, Father John Neuhaus and Michael Novak aren't exactly menorah lighters. Second, support for Israel -- a key tenet of neoconservatism -- is hardly confined to Jews; its strongest constituency in America happens to be among evangelical Christians.
Frankly, I think Scarborough's comment was anti-Semitic; the same type of verbal miscue that Trent Lott made when speaking at Strom's 100th birthday. It's fine to bash Frum individually as a opportunity-seeking, disgruntled former employee who was looking to cut a book deal while being disloyal to his former boss. (Then again, Frum's book The Right Man was very praiseworthy of Bush -- witness the title -- so I don't agree.) But to use this to paint "neoconservatives" as disloyal through the ages sounds like an anti-Jewish canard to me. Shame on Scarborough.
Thoughts?
I caught Scarborough bashing Frum and his fellow "neo-conservatives" as (and I'm paraphrasing here) "intellectuals that are never loyal to a Republican president. These guys called Reagan an idiot, Ford stupid, they're as disloyal as everyone on the left." Now, I haven't read Frum's book and other than his daily columns and recent television appearances, I know little about the guy. But Frum is no neo-conservative -- if the word is defined as a former liberal who has embraced the conservative movement. Charles Krauthammer, Bill Bennett and Irving Kristol are three prominent neocons. Frum isn't and never has been.
David Frum always has been a conservative Republican. His formative years were during the Reagan era, after the Democratic party veered to the left in presidential elections. So what else is left by Scarborough's definition? I know little about Frum and even less about Scarborough, but the attack seemed to be targeted at Jewish conservatives. In what other context would Scarborough be using the word neo-con?
Max Boot of the WSJ wrote a terrific little piece about how neo-conservatism really doesn't mean anything today. Boot concluded that most neo-cons commonly disdain both an isolationist foreign policy and an automatic aversion to any government. Indeed, Bush's policies are essentially neo-conservative. He wants to force regime change in Iraq, and his compassionate conservatism allows room for certain government-run programs: witness faith-based charity.
So what was Scarborough's point in labeling Frum as a neo-con? Here's what Boot wrote in his column:
When Buchananites toss around "neoconservative" -- and cite names like Wolfowitz and Cohen -- it sometimes sounds as if what they really mean is "Jewish conservative." This is a malicious slur on two levels. First, many of the leading neocons aren't Jewish; Jeane Kirkpatrick, Bill Bennett, Father John Neuhaus and Michael Novak aren't exactly menorah lighters. Second, support for Israel -- a key tenet of neoconservatism -- is hardly confined to Jews; its strongest constituency in America happens to be among evangelical Christians.
Frankly, I think Scarborough's comment was anti-Semitic; the same type of verbal miscue that Trent Lott made when speaking at Strom's 100th birthday. It's fine to bash Frum individually as a opportunity-seeking, disgruntled former employee who was looking to cut a book deal while being disloyal to his former boss. (Then again, Frum's book The Right Man was very praiseworthy of Bush -- witness the title -- so I don't agree.) But to use this to paint "neoconservatives" as disloyal through the ages sounds like an anti-Jewish canard to me. Shame on Scarborough.
Thoughts?
The Mice is Right: Just to piggyback onto Howard's post on Israeli contributions to the US and scientific community, this recent development may yield biotech fruit faster than some of the more ambitious tissue generation projects. This becomes even more important in a Jewish society where much debate exists on the permissibility of organ donation after death. I can understand the arguments for both sides, but thanks to some bright Israeli scientists, that argument may become moot.
Israeli science & technology research that helps the U.S.: In my "Economists Against Israel" column last month, I barely scratched the surface of what Israel does and creates to the benefit of the U.S., both directly and indirectly. Here are some recent examples:
Judith also offered some more examples on Dec. 22.
- Israel, in a joint program with the U.S. military, is helping take Combat lasers from science fiction to science fact. Successful test firings have become routine for the Mobil Tactical High-Energy Laser, MTHEL, a joint American-Israeli weapon designed to swat down small short-range rockets and even artillery shells in mid-air.
- Israeli civilian planes will be pioneering defenses against anti-aircraft missiles. Israel Radio said the plan calls for "a joint project with the U.S. to produce an advanced system."
- Israeli scientists are cleaning up the environment. A Tel Aviv University professor who pioneered the use of bacteria to clean up oil pollution in oil tankers, pipelines and on beaches has been named the winner of the prestigious annual Proctor and Gamble Award for Applied and Environmental Microbiology awarded by the American Society of Microbiology.
- Israel and Texas signed a three-year $500,000 a year agricultural R&D cooperation agreement last month. Israel and Texas will each contribute $250,000 a year to finance the agreement. It is believed the annual budget will finance 2-3 agricultural research projects a year. A scientific committee, composed of representatives from both states, will select suitable projects. Like Israel, large parts of Texas are arid, and many projects will probably be devoted to irrigation.
- A growing number of U.S. police departments are using advanced communications technology developed in Israel to improve their law enforcement and public safety capabilities.US police forces are choosing Israeli technologies to improve law enforcement capabilities
- Medical researchers at Haifa's Technion have succeeded in producing heart tissue using human stem cells.
Judith also offered some more examples on Dec. 22.
Hmmm. Snowing again. Hope it sticks. After 10 years in Austin I'm not jaded yet. BTW I finally had a chance to check out Real Live Preacher. If you've been reading KesherTalk for a while, you will know I can be rather caustic about Christians and their obsessions with converting me. But Real Live Preacher (a fellow Texan too!) and Eve Tushnet show me what an inner Christian sprituality looks like. I can appreciate it - notice the bits of my Jewish spirituality that peek through, and the bits where Christianity decided to differentiate and produce something new. I don't have to brace myself against it - I can just appreciate it the way I appreciate Buddhists or Sufis or Native Americans or other religious folk who aren't grabbing my labels and telling me they love me so much they want to make me just like them.
UPDATE: Another Salon-based intriguingly reflective clergy blog. Okay, it's definitely time for a rabbi to step up to the plate. (I think I got to all of these via Electrolite)
UPDATE: Another Salon-based intriguingly reflective clergy blog. Okay, it's definitely time for a rabbi to step up to the plate. (I think I got to all of these via Electrolite)
And a special shoulder squeeze for all my fans. Time for another Tolkein parody.
PS. Way too many Tolkein parodies, discussions and reviews here.
UPDATE: Oh, here's another one.
FANGORN FORESTThere's much more. (via Plumcrazy)
MERRY: Yay! We escaped the Uruk-hai!
PIPPIN: Uh, Merry? That tree is checking you out.
TREEBEARD: Hoom! Furry lawn ornaments!
TREEBEARD picks up MERRY and PIPPIN and carts them off.
FANGORN FOREST (next day)
GANDALF: Hey, kids. Miss me?
ARAGORN: Gandalf! You're alive!
LEGOLAS: I almost had a facial expression from the joy of it!
PS. Way too many Tolkein parodies, discussions and reviews here.
UPDATE: Oh, here's another one.
A summary of Israeli editorials: This one is noteworthy mostly not only because it is truthful and unbiased, but because it appears in a Lebanese paper. There is hope.
French consulates reject Jewish marriage certificates: The French consulates in Jerusalem and Haifa are refusing to recognize Jewish wedding ceremonies, including those performed in pre-1967 Israel, if the presiding rabbi happens to be a resident of Judea, Samaria, or the Gaza Strip. A spokesperson for the consulate in Jerusalem confirmed the policy.
For example, Martine D., a Frenchwoman who converted to Judaism and married an Israeli in a ceremony in Jerusalem, approached the French Consulate to apply for a livret de famille, an official document which records the status and details of one's family members. Martine's request was turned down, she was told, because the rabbi who performed the ceremony lives in Gush Etzion.
Getting screwed by exceedinly strict views of 'who is a Jew' is all too common. Jews have to battle to maintain their standing as Jewish in the eyes of the ever-restrictive ultra-Orthodox in Israel. When my brother was getting married in France, he had to jump through dozens of hoops to prove to his rabbi's satisfaction that our parents were both suitably Jewish and so was their wedding ceremony.
But this is entirely different. The French are not disavowing the legitimacy of any and every wedding in the "Palestinian Authority" -- just Jewish ones. Is this a pro-Palestinian or anti-semitic policy?
Not that France is the most friendly of places for Jews. Parisian rabbi Gabriel Farhi was stabbed twice in the stomach late last Friday afternoon. He was only lightly wounded. On Monday, his car was set on fire outside his apartment. Not surprisingly, French Jews are nervous. Back in spring 2002, with anti-semitic violence flaring nearly every day, many French Jews, including members of my brother's family-in-law, were talking about leaving for Israel (2,326 French Jews actually made Aliyah in 2002). My brother predicted that the attacks would subside, and the Jewish population there would forget about the problems -- until the next time. I don't think he was expecting the next time to come quite so soon...
For example, Martine D., a Frenchwoman who converted to Judaism and married an Israeli in a ceremony in Jerusalem, approached the French Consulate to apply for a livret de famille, an official document which records the status and details of one's family members. Martine's request was turned down, she was told, because the rabbi who performed the ceremony lives in Gush Etzion.
Getting screwed by exceedinly strict views of 'who is a Jew' is all too common. Jews have to battle to maintain their standing as Jewish in the eyes of the ever-restrictive ultra-Orthodox in Israel. When my brother was getting married in France, he had to jump through dozens of hoops to prove to his rabbi's satisfaction that our parents were both suitably Jewish and so was their wedding ceremony.
But this is entirely different. The French are not disavowing the legitimacy of any and every wedding in the "Palestinian Authority" -- just Jewish ones. Is this a pro-Palestinian or anti-semitic policy?
Not that France is the most friendly of places for Jews. Parisian rabbi Gabriel Farhi was stabbed twice in the stomach late last Friday afternoon. He was only lightly wounded. On Monday, his car was set on fire outside his apartment. Not surprisingly, French Jews are nervous. Back in spring 2002, with anti-semitic violence flaring nearly every day, many French Jews, including members of my brother's family-in-law, were talking about leaving for Israel (2,326 French Jews actually made Aliyah in 2002). My brother predicted that the attacks would subside, and the Jewish population there would forget about the problems -- until the next time. I don't think he was expecting the next time to come quite so soon...
Local Islamic centers' dystopia: Josh Kraushaar writes about an Islamic Education Center near him in Potomac, Maryland, concerned about the anti-American and anti-Israeli teachings.
Instead of bending over backwards, as the Sephardic Jews did in France to gain the acceptance of their Christian peers, it seems that Islamic groups are making every attempt to avoid being a part of America. It's not a matter of assimilation, which some view as abandoning religious practices and becoming entirely secular. It's about integration -- about not promising students with divine providence if they "struggle against the U.S." Is that so hard to ask?
Trolls to the left of us, trolls to the right of us. . . . An entertaining but somewhat frightening troll haunts the comment threads at Stand Down, who posts under "DavidByron." He's in fine form here.
. . . . For example I've gone over (briefly) some of the many lies put out but feminists about the Taliban. I also think that feminism is used as a good pretext for invading third world countries -- whether it is fictional "rape camps" in Yugoslavia or the idea that women can't work, go to school or leave their homes in Afghanistan. Just like most groups the Taliban attacked men more than women. It's hard to buck the global trend. Again I'll refer folks to Gendercide Watch.Okaaaay. At first I thought he was an FBI plant (you know, like they used to do to destabilize the SDS in the 60s). Now I think he's probably a LaRouchie.
Monday, January 06, 2003
Lighting the way with fun: Here are some Jewish light bulb puns (source unknown). Please take them in the jest with which they are intended...
Q: How many Hasidic Rebbes does it take to change a light bulb?
A: What is a light bulb?
Q: How many Orthodox Rabbis does it take to change a light bulb?
A: Change?
Q: How many Conservative Rabbis does it take to change a light bulb?
A: None, call a committee meeting.
Q: How many Reform Rabbis does it take to change a light bulb?
A: None, anyone can change it whenever they want to.
Q: How many Jews does it take to change a light bulb?
A: 30. One to change the bulb & 29 to discuss it ad nauseum.
Q. How many Lubavitchers does it take to change a light bulb?
A. None, it never died.
Q: How many Bratzlaver Chassidim does it take to change a light bulb?
A: None. They will never find one that burned as brightly as the first one.
Q: How many congregants does it take to change a light bulb in a synagogue?
A: CHANGE? You vant we should CHANGE the light bulb? My grandmother donated that light bulb!!!
Q: How many Hasidic Rebbes does it take to change a light bulb?
A: What is a light bulb?
Q: How many Orthodox Rabbis does it take to change a light bulb?
A: Change?
Q: How many Conservative Rabbis does it take to change a light bulb?
A: None, call a committee meeting.
Q: How many Reform Rabbis does it take to change a light bulb?
A: None, anyone can change it whenever they want to.
Q: How many Jews does it take to change a light bulb?
A: 30. One to change the bulb & 29 to discuss it ad nauseum.
Q. How many Lubavitchers does it take to change a light bulb?
A. None, it never died.
Q: How many Bratzlaver Chassidim does it take to change a light bulb?
A: None. They will never find one that burned as brightly as the first one.
Q: How many congregants does it take to change a light bulb in a synagogue?
A: CHANGE? You vant we should CHANGE the light bulb? My grandmother donated that light bulb!!!
Return of Son of Muslim Comedy Night. Occasionally, someone will note with amazement the almost complete lack of Muslim humor, at which point I post some links about Muslim comedians. It's Islamofascists who - like all totalitarian utopians - have no sense of humor, as Shazia Mirza found out:
In honor of a spanking clean brand new year, I was deleting some old drafts and revising others, and came upon a few links from August about Ray Hanania (remember him?) as well as a story about Israeli topical humor. What a great juxtaposition!
Now if Jews didn't invent irreverent humor, we certainly spend a lot of time perfecting it. So if you wonder just how Israelis continue to cope with bombing after bombing, not to mention being reviled and isolated by most of the world:
UPDATE: Comedian Eli Yatzpan is still annoying the powerful.
I understand that last year you were attacked by a group of Muslim men in a comedy club in East London.Kamal al-Marayati also reports a run-in with co-religionists "mired in minutae" (as he puts it).
It was a few Muslim fundamentalists who said I shouldn't be doing it because I was a woman. They say that, in Islam, women are meant to be really subdued and reserved, which is why they are meant to cover themselves up.
In honor of a spanking clean brand new year, I was deleting some old drafts and revising others, and came upon a few links from August about Ray Hanania (remember him?) as well as a story about Israeli topical humor. What a great juxtaposition!
Now if Jews didn't invent irreverent humor, we certainly spend a lot of time perfecting it. So if you wonder just how Israelis continue to cope with bombing after bombing, not to mention being reviled and isolated by most of the world:
. . . . Israeli humorists have used every subject as raw material, with the sole exception of the Holocaust. Before statehood in 1948, the poet Natan Alterman satirized Zionist leaders in cabarets at the Broom Theater. On the eve of the 1967 war, when ordinary Israelis were digging trenches and parks were being prepared to serve as cemeteries, a running joke here went, "The last one to leave Israel should turn out the lights." The playwright Hanoch Levine famously skewered Prime Minister Golda Meir in "The Queen of the Bathroom." A popular mid-1970's television show — "Nikui Rosh" or "Brainwashing" — lampooned the government investigation into Israel's nearly fatal military and intelligence failures in the 1973 Yom Kippur War.I'd love to see Letterman place a crank call to Saddam Hussein . . . .
Amid the current turmoil, the television personalities Shay Goldstein and Dror Rafael placed crank calls to Hezbollah and the Iranian parliament. Eli Yatzpan, the star of a nightly show on cable television, has specialized in withering impersonations of political leaders; his send-up of Hosni Mubarak, the Egyptian president, led Egypt to lodge a formal diplomatic complaint.
UPDATE: Comedian Eli Yatzpan is still annoying the powerful.
A Catholic religious figure stands alongside the famous Fountain of Trevi in Rome, promising to grant a special blessing to passing tourists if they indulge his strange requests. The blessing consists of a string of derogatory comments in Hebrew and Arabic. The skit, one of comedian Eli Yatzpan's "candid camera" antics for an Israeli television show, was strongly condemned by Italian officials and the Vatican.
The Latest on Mad Mel. I have been neglecting several stories which KT had been following, among them the continuing journey of "The Passion," Mel Gibson's interpretation of the Christian Gospels towards its release.
Meanwhile, the IJC reports that "The Passion" fatwa has been recalled.
Meanwhile, the IJC reports that "The Passion" fatwa has been recalled.
Suicide Bombers Strike Lincoln. The American Kaiser decided to close up shop a few weeks ago, but the latest bombings in Israel roused him to wonder: what if Americans settled political issues in the same way that Arabs did? (via lgf comments)
Confrontation works sometimes. Oh well, I guess I should post this while the whole Raelian thing is hot.
Sharp-eyed viewers of television interviews with founder Rael may have noticed him wearing a necklace featuring a Star of David-shaped medallion, with a pinwheel filling the star. The design has been the official logo of the movement for more than a decade, but that’s not always been the case. The original symbol was much more provocative: a swastika within a Jewish star. The change came after an emotional confrontation I had with Rael in early 1992. . . .
Sunday, January 05, 2003
A close encounter of the political kind.Today as I walked from the 72nd & Broadway subway stop to the Fairway, I passed a table with several Lyndon LaRouche drones shoving flyers in everyone's face. There was also a handlettered poster on the side of the table, something about Bush and Sharon. The guy smiled at me, said something about Bush and Sharon, shoved the flyer under my nose . . . and I reared back and spit on it and kept walking. Didn't think about it - it just came out. Boy that felt good.
Come get us, Saddam. Israel carried out a test launch of its Arrow missile interceptor Sunday, stepping up preparations for possible attack by Iraq in event of a U.S.-led war in the Gulf.
The Ungodliest of the Year? BeliefNet profiles the "Godless Who's Who," giving information on those at the forefront of the "atheist movement." Holy Weblog imagines what the competition must have been like:
"I believe less than you do!" "No, I do!" "No, me!"
I love the Forward Dept. Remember Jews for Allah? This site elicited a "WTF???" from some bloggers last summer, and bemused deconstruction from Meryl and myself. Now the Forward has a typically endearing human-interest interview with the Egyptian-born Bethel, CONN. resident who runs the site.
. . . while Ghounem is no great fan of Jews For Jesus — he calls Christians "flesh-god worshippers" — he is a student of sorts of their tactics in missionizing to the Jews. "At this point I really admire Moishe Rosen," said Ghounem, referring to the founder of Jews For Jesus. . . .When the interviewer from the Jewish weekly can't keep a straight face while talking to you, you might wonder if you have credibility problems with your marketing demographic. Or you might not.
But Ghounem apparently lacks one of Rosen's major selling points: Ghounem isn't Jewish. "I believe I have" Jewish ancestry, Ghounem told the Forward. "My middle name is Moses. And all Semitic peoples share the same blood... We all come from the same common ancestor — we are all children of Abraham." When asked if he is well-read in Jewish literature, Ghounem replied: "Well, I read The New York Times everyday." The reporter who was interviewing him burst into laughter — and Ghounem joined him.
Perhaps more to gain legitimacy than anything else, the 31-year-old Ghounem is presently searching for a Jewish convert to Islam to become president of his tiny organization. "There are only half-a-dozen to a dozen hardcore members," Ghounen said, but added that he has spoken to what he estimates are around 100 converts via e-mail, and his site had had more than a million hits.A hundred converts - imagine that! A real beachhead. Yeah, novelty will get you hits. Somehow I don't think this guy is a threat to the Jewish people. A Muslim nebbish with a hobby, more like it. But his friend is kind of scary:
Yousef Khatab, a friend of Ghounem's and a former Orthodox Jew from New York who two years ago became a convert to Wahabbi Islam, dismissed the idea of a Jews For Jesus-style Islam. . . . Khatab maintains his own Web site, Jews To Islam — which describes his conversion to Islam and his disputes with anti-missionaries like [Rabbi Tovia] Singer. His battle with Singer is currently under investigation by the FBI after Khatab posted Singer's photograph and home address on his Web site. [emphasis mine.]At least his graphic design totally sucks.
"Nuclear Weapons are a RIGHT!" Glenn Frazier has some cool anti-war bumperstickers. Sort of. (via Rev. Sensing)